Comments by "Triple 9" (@Betta66) on "Trump Crushes the Democrats in Fundraising" video.
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Christopher Stanis Geez, did you get your English degree from Trump University? No one is saying colleges are perfect, but there is no reason anyone should be defending Trump University.
1. It was unlicensed. In 2005, the New York Department of Education warned the business that calling itself a university was misleading and in violation of the state's education laws. But it kept the name until 2010 when the New York Department of Education demanded that the name be changed.
2. Its advertisements made false claims. For example, Trump promised to personally hand-pick the university professors, when in actuality, independent contractors paid commissions for sales of the seminars and products. He later said under oath that he was never personally involved in hiring instructors and never personally hand-picked them. Business experts call that "lying." Relatedly, former employees said in sworn statements that the seminar business engaged in unethical sales techniques and hired unqualified instructors.
3. Unsealed sales and marketing materials describe the university's awful approach to selling consumers on various course packages, even if they have to go into debt to enroll. For instance, if anyone was hesitant to use a recently paid off credit card, the playbooks suggest using the following rebuttal: "Do you like living paycheck to paycheck? Do you enjoy seeing everyone else but yourself in their dream houses? Those people saw an opportunity, and didn't make excuses, like what you're doing now."
4. Trump lost multiple court cases involving Trump University (or the Trump Entrepreneur Initiative, as it was renamed). A New York trial court found Trump University and Trump himself liable for running an unlicensed school. It also authorized Trump's attorneys to take the depositions of the more than 5,000 consumers for whom the attorney general was seeking restitution. A court later declined to throw out a fraud case against the school, rejecting arguments from Donald Trump's lawyers that it should be dismissed under the statute of limitations. Trump lost his case countersuing for defamation. A judge ordered him to pay $800,000 to cover her attorneys' fees.
Try again.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@c.august5358 1. I'm from Maryland.
2. Does you think all gun legislation is about taking your guns? Or do you think this is a slippery slope scenario? Listen, buddy, we've been a nation for almost 250 years. If liberals wanted your guns taken away, they've had plenty of opportunities to do that. But they didn't, nor will they.
3. The point about Proud Boys and Antifa is not that they're the same. Yes, I said I consider them to be equally violent, but they support completely different ideologies. However, from what I can tell, all they do is fight each other anyway. So to clarify, they both endorse violence, but predominantly against each other.
"You can see video of Antifa attacking homeless, trans, students, disabled, elderly, kids, women, gay, journalists left and right, etc."
Maybe this is just me, but whether you take into account Antifa's history of violence, you can't just assume it absolves the Proud Boys of doing shit like this:
https://twitter.com/HuntedHorse/status/1050895721766014976
https://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-proud-boys-bar-20180717-story.html
https://www.pinknews.co.uk/2019/03/15/proud-boys-homophobic-attack/
4. "The dude who organized the event set it up intentionally to degrade into violence. He was a liberal organizer who previously organized occupy events. He invited those radical groups to get the media he got. The purpose was to make the right seem synonymous with racists.
"
Evidence?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@EgoBrain1 Wrong! Obama didn't do nothing. He was simply worried about being perceived as personally interfering in the election on Hillary's behalf, and it would feed Trump's narrative that the election was rigged. His administration had discussed retaliatory options like spreading intelligence to expose Putin's corruption, but that would have sparked a cyber war. Obama even personally took Putin aside at an international summit and told him to stop. That didn't work, so Obama then sought to enlist Republican congressional leaders to craft a joint bipartisan statement condemning Putin’s government, the idea being that a bipartisan statement would preemptively dispel any attempts by Trump to spin Obama's efforts as election interference. McConnell refused, because he is the worst. But I digress. While we can debate whether Obama should have done more, the idea that he did nothing at all is a lie. Starting in December of 2016, 35 Russian "diplomats" and suspected spies were ejected from the United States, their U.S. facilities which were used to spy from New York and Maryland closed. He also imposed narrow sanctions on some Russian individuals and organizations. Now, yes, Trump did sign a sanctions bill into law. However, Congress largely passed the bill with veto-proof majorities in response to Trump downplaying the issue of Russian meddling. When he signed the bill, Trump expressed significant reservations, saying it was "seriously flawed." Also, there's the fact that the White House seemed to be in no hurry to implement the sanctions. The Trump administration didn’t provide the list of who the sanctions apply to until very late. And Trump reversed Obama's Magnitsky Act, which targeted high-ranking Russians with sanctions. Oh, and there was that time he lifted sanctions on three companies tied to Putin ally Oleg Deripaska, who also had ties to Paul Manafort. We could argue who was tougher, but Trump's strategy appears to be sending mixed messages for...some reason I can't seem to figure out.
Try again, you fucking moron.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@EgoBrain1 Which comment? This one?
"Obama was warned that Russia would interfere with the election and did nothing...so he must be a traitor according to you."
You do realize that in this very comment thread, I went into detail about Obama's response to Russian interference, right? Here, let me jog your memory:
Obama was worried about being perceived as personally interfering in the election on Hillary's behalf, and it would feed Trump's narrative that the election was rigged. His administration had discussed retaliatory options like spreading intelligence to expose Putin's corruption, but that would have sparked a cyber war. Obama even personally took Putin aside at an international summit and told him to stop. That didn't work, so Obama then sought to enlist Republican congressional leaders to craft a joint bipartisan statement condemning Putin’s government, the idea being that a bipartisan statement would preemptively dispel any attempts by Trump to spin Obama's efforts as election interference. McConnell refused, because he is the worst. But I digress. While we can debate whether Obama should have done more, the idea that he did nothing at all is a lie. Starting in December of 2016, 35 Russian "diplomats" and suspected spies were ejected from the United States, their U.S. facilities which were used to spy from New York and Maryland closed. Obama also imposed narrow sanctions on some Russian individuals and organizations. Now, yes, Trump did sign a sanctions bill into law. However, Congress largely passed the bill with veto-proof majorities in response to Trump downplaying the issue of Russian meddling. When he signed the bill, Trump expressed significant reservations, saying it was "seriously flawed." Also, there's the fact that the White House seemed to be in no hurry to implement the sanctions. The Trump administration didn’t provide the list of who the sanctions apply to until very late. And Trump reversed Obama's Magnitsky Act, which targeted high-ranking Russians with sanctions. Oh, and there was that time he lifted sanctions on three companies tied to Putin ally Oleg Deripaska, who also had ties to Paul Manafort. We could argue who was tougher, but Trump's strategy appears to be sending mixed messages for...some reason I can't seem to figure out.
But I digress. Let's address your point: "Regardless of what you think would've happened, he did the equivalent of Trump and yet you say Trump is doing nothing. So condemn neither or condemn both."
Obama did the equivalent of Trump? At best, that's debatable. Obama at least looked like he took it seriously. Trump was like "We don't know if the Russians did it," even though the entire intelligence community says Russia did it. And every time the topic came up in a personal discussion between Trump and Putin, Trump's responses were arguably worse than if he had done nothing at all.
- He asked Putin "Did you interfere?" and had no follow up questions when Putin denied it
- He kept an interpreter's notes of the Helsinki meeting private for no adequately explained reason
- He half-jokingly told Putin not to interfere
- He said at the aforementioned Helsinki meeting that he didn't see any reason why Russia would have interfered, then later claimed he actually meant to say "wouldn't" instead of "would," because again, EVERYONE IN INTELLIGENCE SAYS RUSSIA DID IT
So please explain to me how I'm supposed to think Obama and Trump did the same amount.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@katlynn7845 1. That flexibility comment was 2012. It was an election year in both countries, so waiting until after the election meant Obama wouldn't need to try negotiating when much of his attention was on his reelection campaign. Also, he said it to Dmitri Medvedev, not Putin. Wow, you're a moron.
2. Why didn't Obama do more? Obama worried he would be perceived as personally interfering in the election on Hillary's behalf, and it would feed Trump's narrative that the election was rigged. His administration had discussed retaliatory options like spreading intelligence to expose Putin's corruption, but that would have sparked a cyber war. Obama even personally took Putin aside at an international summit and told him to stop. That didn't work, so Obama then sought to enlist Republican congressional leaders to craft a joint bipartisan statement condemning Putin’s government, the idea being that a bipartisan statement would preemptively dispel any attempts by Trump to spin Obama's efforts as election interference. McConnell refused, because he is the worst. But I digress. While we can debate whether Obama should have done more, the idea that he did nothing at all is a lie. Starting in December of 2016, 35 Russian "diplomats" and suspected spies were ejected from the United States, their U.S. facilities which were used to spy from New York and Maryland closed. He also imposed narrow sanctions on some Russian individuals and organizations. Now, yes, Trump did sign a sanctions bill into law. However, Congress largely passed the bill with veto-proof majorities in response to Trump downplaying the issue of Russian meddling. When he signed the bill, Trump expressed significant reservations, saying it was "seriously flawed." Also, there's the fact that the White House seemed to be in no hurry to implement the sanctions. The Trump administration didn’t provide the list of who the sanctions apply to until very late. And Trump reversed Obama's Magnitsky Act, which targeted high-ranking Russians with sanctions. Oh, and there was that time he lifted sanctions on three companies tied to Putin ally Oleg Deripaska, who also had ties to Paul Manafort. We could argue who was tougher, but Trump's strategy appears to be sending mixed messages for...some reason I can't seem to figure out.
3. Try again.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1