Youtube comments of Triple 9 (@Betta66).
-
3400
-
65
-
43
-
42
-
42
-
40
-
27
-
20
-
14
-
12
-
11
-
10
-
10
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
8
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
Bub loves lunch in a bucket Will you let me answer your fucking question first, asshole?
The joint declaration says Mexico agreed to the “deployment of its National Guard throughout Mexico, giving priority to its southern border.” But the Mexican government had already pledged to do that in March during secret talks between Kirstjen Nielsen, then-Secretary of Homeland Security, and Olga Sanchez, the Mexican Secretary of the Interior. The centerpiece of Trump’s deal was an expansion of a program to allow asylum-seekers to remain in Mexico while their legal cases proceed. However, that arrangement was reached in December in a pair of thoroughly negotiated diplomatic notes that the two countries exchanged. Nielsen announced the Migrant Protection Protocols during a hearing of the House Judiciary Committee on December 20. Negotiators failed to persuade Mexico to accept a “safe third country” treaty that would have given the United States the legal ability to reject asylum seekers if they had not sought refuge in Mexico first.
To recap, Trump announced in May that he was threatening Mexico with tariffs unless they did something to address illegal immigration, even though, as already explained, they had been in the process of doing that for months. E
ither Trump knew that these concessions were already agreed on long ago (meaning he lied to the country and especially his supporters about them) or he didn’t know because he's a moron.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@too_short_cortetm8507 Here are a few claims I've found as supporting evidence for Obama's birth certificate being fake.
1. "African-Americans were referred to as 'Negroes' at the time, so why was Obama's race listed as 'African-American' when the term wasn't in use yet?"
Because the term "African-American" isn't on the birth certificate. Obama's father's race is listed as "African," which at the time described people who were actually born in Africa like his father was.
2. "At the time of Obama’s birth in 1961, his father was 25, and it says he was born in 'Kenya, East Africa'. Kenya did not exist until 1963. Before then, it was the 'British East Africa Protectorate.' How could Obama’s father have been born in a country that did not yet exist?"
It's true that Kenya did not achieve complete independence from the United Kingdom until 1963. But it was known as the "Kenya Colony" from 1920 onward and was typically referred to as Kenya long before 1963. Hundreds of news reports from 1961 can be found referring to it simply as "Kenya."
3. "The listed place of birth is the Kapiolani Maternity & Gynecological Hospital. This cannot be, because the hospital(s) in question in 1961 were called 'Kaui Keolani Children’s Hospital' and 'Kapi’olani Maternity Home', respectively. The name did not change to Kapi’olani Maternity & Gynecological Hospital until the two hospitals merged in 1978. How can this particular name of the hospital be on a birth certificate dated 1961 if this name had not yet been applied to it until 1978?
"
The former Kapi’olani Maternity Home was known as the Kapi’olani Maternity & Gynecological Hospital from 1931 to 1971, at which point its name was shortened to Kapi’olani Hospital. Obama wasn't born in the Kauikeolani Children’s Hospital; it was a separate entity which merged with the Kapi’olani Hospital in 1978 to become the Kapi’olani Medical Center for Women and Children. If you look, you can find a listing of social services available in Hawaiian documents showing that the facility bore that name prior to 1961. Moreover, a copy of a birth certificate issued to a child born in Honolulu one day after Obama also shows “Kapi’olani Maternity & Gynecological Hospital” listed in the “Name of Hospital” field.
4. "Opening the file in Adobe Illustrator reveals multiple layers."
That's from common, off-the-shelf scanning software, not forgery.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
Alex Jones is a "genuinely hateful person" and he's not a leftist. Neither is Richard Spencer, Nigel Farage, Sebastian Gorka, Pat Buchanan, James Allsup, Davis Aurini, Milo Yiannopoulos, Michael Grimm, Greg Gianforte, Arthur Jones, Mitch McConnell, Ted Cruz, Steve Bannon, the guy who sent out mail bombs in October, or...oh yeah, Trump supporter David Duke.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@truthhurts1884 Wrong! If he had run as a Democrat, I would still have hated him. Irrespective of whatever platform he's decided would make him more popular, he's an opportunist, a serial liar, a fraud, a con man, an adulterer, and a generally disgusting human being. I don't make excuses for Anthony Weiner or Michael Avenatti, so please don't assume I have that kind of blind party loyalty just because you do. And look, I want peace as much as you do, but Trump is not a diplomat. North Korea is still running weapons tests and Trump isn't doing anything to punish them because he doesn't know what he's doing.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@zoephin6205 Microsoft is a trillion dollar company. What's your point? That Bill Gates losing 3% of his company's current worth is a bad thing? Even then, efforts to diversify don't really count in Trump's favor when Trump Steaks, Trump Iced Bottle Water, The New Jersey Generals, the TourDeTrump bike race, ACN, the Trump Network, Trump: The Game, Trump Magazine, Trump Vodka, Trump Airlines all failed. Not to mention Trump University was sued for fraud.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
First of all, you're repeating the same mistake as everyone in 2016 who insisted Trump couldn't possibly win. We're over a year and a half away from the 2020 election and you're already so sure that the subject of 16 criminal investigations will win. He could, but if he doesn't, I guarantee you'll be making excuses for it so you don't have to admit you backed the wrong horse. Secondly, I'm not pretending Hillary has a spotless record, but no criminal charges were ever filed against her. I wouldn't argue if you had good, valid reasons for why there should have been charges filed. However, if you do that, it wouldn't change the fact that even before the Trump administration lost over 90% of lawsuits over illegal policy changes, Trump was variously sued for fraud, housing discrimination (by the Justice Department no less), and not paying workers. Finally, Hillary isn't the president. Trump is. I'm all for holding her accountable for wrongdoings, but we shouldn't just pick and choose who gets held responsible. Otherwise, what's the point of having a representative government?
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@frankmanning3815 Page 6:
"President Trump abused the powers of his high office through the following
means:
(1) Directing the White House to defy a lawful subpoena by withholding the
production of documents sought therein by the Committees.
(2) Directing other Executive Branch agencies and offices to defy lawful subpoenas and withhold the production of documents and records from the Committees—in response to which the Department of State, Office of Management and
Budget, Department of Energy, and Department of Defense refused to produce
a single document or record.
(3) Directing current and former Executive Branch officials not to cooperate
with the Committees—in response to which nine Administration officials defied
subpoenas for testimony, namely John Michael 'Mick' Mulvaney, Robert B.
Blair, John A. Eisenberg, Michael Ellis, Preston Wells Griffith, Russell T.
Vought, Michael Duffey, Brian McCormack, and T. Ulrich Brechbuhl.
"
Bear in mind that one of the charges made in the second of the three articles of impeachment against Richard Nixon was:
"impairing the due and proper administration of justice and the conduct of lawful inquiries."
And that was in the article charging him with abuse of power.
2
-
2
-
@frankmanning3815 What were they wrong about? That Trump didn't commit abuse of office or obstruction of Congress?
Let me spell it out for you.
According to the FEC, it is illegal for any person to solicit, accept, or receive anything of value from a foreign national in connection with a U.S. election.
Trump's claim is that he did nothing wrong on the Ukraine call, despite the fact that his strongest evidence of this claim is a document he claims is a full transcript of the phone call that says "not a verbatim transcript" on the first page. Even without that, it should've been obvious that it wasn't a full transcript because the phone call lasted thirty minutes and the document is four pages long, as if a thirty minute phone call could fit on four pages. But that doesn't prove Trump wasn't innocent, does it? No, he was just requesting an investigation into a crime. Except...you know...if either Joe or Hunter Biden had committed a crime, why hadn't the Ukrainian government investigated it already? Multiple Ukrainian officials have stated emphatically that neither Joe nor Hunter Biden did anything wrong. Joe didn't join the multinational effort to pressure the Ukrainian government into firing Shokin because he investigated the company where Hunter worked. If anything, it was because he wasn't investigating the company on account of being bad at his job of rooting out corruption. With that in mind, what other reason would Trump have to call for an investigation into a 2020 candidate? Further, why bring foreign aid into the equation? And if Trump believes he truly did nothing wrong, why is a summary all he's presenting? Why instruct people not to testify?
Actually, don't answer any of those questions. I already know you're not overly concerned with facts anyway.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@waynemartin2536 First of all, George Soros has nothing to do with me. Secondly, yes, banning an entire group of people from entering a country for no good reason is bad. And don't say it's a matter of national security. None of the shooters in Las Vegas, the Sutherland Springs church, Stoneman Douglas High School, Thousand Oaks, the Pittsburgh synagogue, and Santa Fe High were Muslims or even immigrants. But before you say anything, no, I don't advocate for letting every Muslim immigrant into the country. We shouldn't let any immigrant in without a proper screening.
https://www.theoaklandpress.com/lifestyles/more-americans-killed-by-white-supremecists-than-muslim-extremists-studies/article_58ce7b0b-30bf-5a5a-a023-70ee4f8710c6.html
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I was a big fan of the first three shows - Ben 10, Alien Force, and Ultimate Alien. So I'd like to offer my two cents, whether or not anyone cares.
First of all, either this video is cheating for making a top 10 list about a show called Ben 10, or the show was cheating when it rendered its own title useless by introducing more than 10 aliens.
Second, why is Alien X on the list? He was only ever used in one episode, where he did one thing and then just stood motionless before changing into another alien literally just as a button was about to be pressed that would blow up the Earth.
Third, why TF are Diamondhead and XLR8 honorable mentions? If I made this list, any of the aliens from the first episode - Heatblast, Wildmutt, Diamondhead, XLR8 - would have an immediate advantage. Granted, Heatblast is (spoilers) in the top spot, and the fact that Heatblast was the first alien Ben ever used is reason enough to justify that pick. But while I can look past putting Wildmutt lower than Snareoh (whatever TF his deal was), why leave out Diamondhead and XLR8 altogether? That's giving them the same level of recognition as Eye Guy, which is like giving The Rolling Stones the same level of recognition as the Chainsmokers
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
-
1
-
The Critical Drinker
Fine, forget the kids.
1. Yoda very emphatically told Luke not to go to Bespin because A) it was a trap, and B) Luke wasn’t done with his training. Luke isn’t an idiot for wanting to save his friends, but if he had to leave his training early, he could, I dunno, maybe try to get backup first.
2. Obi-Wan wasn’t hiding on some random planet. He was hiding on Vader’s home planet. And couldn’t Vader just use the Force to find Obi-Wan? When Kylo Ren used the Force on Rey, he could see the island where Luke was hiding. He didn’t know where it was, but he managed to do it anyway. What stopped Vader from using the Force on Obi-Wan and going “Hey, that looks an awful lot like Tattooine”? I mean, from what I recall, that is how he got Luke to leave Dagoba.
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@ryangshooter_1682 Missing one piece of information doesn't mean I do no research. If a border wall were built and one person still managed to cross over it, would you call the wall a failure? No, you wouldn't, so stop making baseless assumptions or else you're no better than me. But I digress. I haven't seen anything attributing the 97% claim to a cartoon. It's true that 97% is overstating the actual consensus, but even the lowest estimates I could find put the number of scientists who agree on man-made climate change is 84%.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/uhenergy/2016/12/14/fact-checking-the-97-consensus-on-anthropogenic-climate-change/#2c2f38221157
Ah yes, "they laughed at Galileo." I didn't know you could use a complete lack of historical context as valid reasons to not buy any scientific consensus. Galileo wasn't denounced by the Church for being right about us not being the literal center of the universe. He was denounced because he spoke with Pope Urban VIII about the relevant science (which people did at the time) and said he was going to write a book presenting the theories as clearly and objectively as possible. Instead, he published Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems, which was written as a discussion between three characters. He used arguments that Pope Urban VIII made to him in those private discussions and had them spoken by the character Simplicio, who might as well have been dressed in a papal hat wearing a sandwich board reading "Idiot." Needless to say, Pope Urban VIII wasn't a fan of the book. But sure, keep telling yourself I'm the one who sucks at research.
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
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
1
-
1
-
Chuck Sta. Maria 1. Actually, they're not claiming asylum for no reason. If they're unable or unwilling to return to their home country because they have a well-founded fear of being persecuted if they go back, that meets the requirements. And since countries like Honduras have notoriously high rates of violent crime, I'm pretty sure that's not "no reason."
2. A foreign government interfered in an election to help a presidential candidate and you're dismissing it because there wasn't enough evidence to show Trump was directly involved?
"Even the impeachment is starting to lose steam."
No evidence for that.
3. "Like what? The Ukaraine? The one where Schif has to make a "parody"? Where the 'whistleblower' was a staff of Obama and is openly against Trump?"
Amazing. Every word of what you just said was wrong.
Firstly, it's "Ukraine."
Secondly, it's "Schiff."
Thirdly, why is it okay when Trump tells a blatant lie but not when Schiff makes a "parody"?
Finally, the whistleblower was a White House employee who worked for the Bush, Obama, and Trump administrations. They're an employee, not an appointee.
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
-
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
-
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@saltywater5097 Did I say we should let everyone in, though? No, I haven't. We aren't obligated to let everyone in no questions asked, but again, they're not automatically violent criminals just for coming here. According to the CDC, smoking-related illness in the United States costs more than $300 billion each year. Now, last I checked, $300 billion is more than $130 billion. You can solve them both, sure, but between you and me, I know which one I'd like to have solved first.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Will to Power 1. "When Mexico sends its people, they're not sending their best. They're bringing drugs, they're bringing crime, they're rapists."
- Donald Trump
And don't tell me I left out the part where Trump says "some, I assume, are good people." Actions speak louder than words, and his actions do not reflect a man who thinks it matters that some of them might be good people. Not to mention virtually every supporter of the border wall uses violent crime as an argument in favor of its construction. One Styx subscriber told me to look up FBI Table 21A as proof of the wall's necessity in keeping illegal immigrants from coming and committing violent crimes, even though the table has nothing to do with illegal immigration.
2. I support border security, but I also support the idea that there are more options than "build a wall to keep out the criminals or you hate America."
3. What quote? No quote I ever shared argued in favor of open borders. What I shared was a quote saying "This is a bad policy because it's cruel," not "This is a bad policy, and the only alternative is to let everyone in no questions asked."
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
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Th3Aggr3ssiv3 Cons3rvativ3 I'm glad you asked. So Trump branded himself during the campaign as a master negotiator, right? And he ran as a Republican, the party that controlled every branch of government for two years. Now, apparently, you'd think that would be enough to get at least most of his border wall done by now. Or at the very least, putting Hillary in jail as he said he would do. And yet, neither has happened. Granted, those aren't the only promises he made, but those were two of his biggest: building a wall and holding Hillary accountable. But again, neither happened, and yet you'd think he would have had all the reason and resources available to make those happen. Why didn't they? If Styx's subscribers are to be believed, it's because the Republicans got in the way, especially concerning the wall. I find that very hard to believe considering McConnell does everything Trump wants, no questions asked. But let's assume that's true, and that Republicans didn't want a wall either. As I said earlier, Trump branded himself as a master negotiator. It should not have been that difficult for him to get people on board, and yet we're still here two and a half years later talking about how we're going to get funding for the border wall.
Ergo, Trump is incompetent.
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
-
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
-
@Unclejake Sorry, but I'm a little confused by the wording of your question. According to the indictment of the 12 Russians:
The Conspirators, posing as Guccifer 2.0, discussed the release of
the stolen documents and the timing of those releases with Organization 1 to heighten their impact on the 2016 U.S. presidential election.
a. On or about June 22, 2016, Organization I sent a private message to Guccifer 2.0
to "send any new material stolen here for us to review and it will have a much higher impact than what you are doing." On or about July 6, 2016, Organization 1 added, "if you have anything Hillary related we want it in the next two days preferable because the DNC is approaching and she will solidify Bernie supporters behind her after." The
Conspirators responded, "Ok . . . i see." Organization 1 explained, "We think trump
has only a 25% chance of winning against Hillary . . . so conflict between Bernie
and Hillary is interesting."
It's been established that the Russians conspired to commit election interference to help Trump win. Barr's summary even acknowledged that. But Barr's summary frustrated Mueller's team for two reasons. Barr had already ruled out obstruction of justice before he was even confirmed as Attorney General. And Mueller's team had their own summaries written, but Barr didn't refer to them when making his own summary.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
MEGA 2020 In the filings, Trump claimed about $6,000 in wages and over $7 million in interest income, but he also deducted almost $16 million from real estate losses and another $909 million in net operating losses from his other businesses.
What isn't revealed is how he earned that income.
On an unrelated note, years ago, Trump set up a sham corporation to disguise millions of dollars in gifts from his parents, helped his father take improper tax deductions worth millions more, and undervalued his parents’ real estate holdings by hundreds of millions of dollars on tax returns, which resulted in a lower tax bill when those properties were transferred to him and his siblings. Not to suggest those are all connected, but if Trump was so sure he never did anything wrong, none of his tax returns would have to be leaked.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@maxa5479 Yeah, this is a bit refreshing.
"Undocumented immigrants costs taxpayers billions of dollars a year. It could stop 60% of crossings and save us 70B each year, that's a nice chunk of money."
We spend $442 billion a year dealing with drug and alcohol abuse and I guarantee that is a bigger contributor to crime than undocumented immigrants. In fact, why do you think cartels try to come here? A big chunk of the U.S. population is addicted to something. Get rid of the demand and drug trafficking will follow suit.
"Let's say you have a bowl full of your favorite candy."
Can't you think of a better analogy than one Skittles explicitly asked people to stop using?
"I don't know where you got that from our conversation."
Again, I didn't get that from you, but from other people who comment on Styx's videos.
"We don't know who is coming in which means we do not know their intent. But can we at least figure out what their background is? They are a burden on our social services and we don't know the background of the people crossing over. Without knowing if someone is a risk is entering the country unnoticed, people are upset that illegals are circumventing the rules."
Gee, it's too bad we literally have no way of knowing any of that. I mean, it's not like we can use translators to ask them questions about where they're from and why they're here. And it's certainly not like we have ways of knowing whether they're lying. And we assuredly couldn't make them leave if they were found to be lying. Seriously, though, how is this difficult? Question them for five or ten minutes and deal with them accordingly. Best of all, hiring translators means creating jobs.
1
-
@maxa5479 I wasn't making up the tone. It wasn't based on anything you specifically said so much as based on what I've generally been told from the people in this comments section. What exactly is our issue supposed to be with illegal immigrants? That the mere act of them being here illegally makes them criminals? Okay, but why do we feel the need to go the extra mile and talk like they're all drug dealers who will murder every white person they see? People like that exist, yes, but is it really necessary to treat all undocumented immigrants like that? We don't have to let them all stay here, but we ought to at least act like some of them might not be violent criminals.
As for the border wall, I'm not convinced that the benefits will outweigh the negative consequences because, if we're being honest, the wall can't solve everything. A wall can't stop undocumented immigrants if they're already here, a wall can't keep cartels from outsmarting checkpoints, a wall won't change the fact that the vast majority of people who were charged with or died while engaging in religious fundamentalist acts since 9/11 have been U.S. citizens or permanent residents, and a wall won't make the immigration courts any less overwhelmed. You brought up the economic factor. Border communities on the Mexican side suffered disruption since the first walls started appearing in 2006 including the environmental damage caused by its construction and the increased costs of doing business due to prolonged crossing times. There's also the matter of Trump renegotiating NAFTA and launching a trade war against Mexico, which increases the possibility of a borderland recession and massive unemployment. And if people in Mexican border communities can't find work, where do you think they'll go?
1
-
1
-
@maxa5479 3. Perhaps, but even then a wall won't stop people from wanting to come here. If the fear is that drug cartels will sneak across an unprotected border, why do you think drug cartels would want to come to a country facing a drug epidemic in the first place? There's business here for them. You'd probably counter with "So just put up a wall while we fix the drug problem," but what's the saying? There is nothing as permanent as a temporary solution? Yeah, that.
5. I imagine that would suck, yes, but judging by the tone some of the people in this comments section have used, I'd be lying if I said social media sites never have a good reason for doing that.
6. From what I've read, the New Zealand ban applies to military-style semi-automatic weapons, assault rifles, and high-capacity magazines. I suspect hand guns probably don't apply.
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
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@justinmiller5660 Obama was talking about voter fraud when he said that, not Russia. What Obama said was "It happens to be based on no facts; every expert, regardless of political party, regardless of ideology, conservative or liberal, who has ever examined these issues in a serious way, will tell you that instances of significant voter fraud are not to be found. The notion that somehow if Mr. Trump loses Florida, it’s because of those people that you have to watch out for, that is both irresponsible and, by the way, doesn’t really show the kind of leadership and toughness that you want out of a president."
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
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@meghan7547 No, you compared a contagious virus to non-viral deaths, which is the most extreme case of false equivalence I have seen recently.
What you actually did was copy-paste a bunch of numbers, dust your hands and said "Great, now I don't have to write an actual argument."
You're willfully ignoring the incompetence that led to dozens of thousands of Americans dying preventable deaths and a situation in which we still don't have enough testing to fully understand the scale of the infection, and the only reason you're doing that is so you can be a worthless troll.
It doesn't matter how much I prove you wrong because you'll refuse to accept it. You'll do everything you're accusing of me.
Typical Styx fan, you're so predictable. You lie, you project, you gaslight, and you're incapable of doing anything but committing fallacies.
You want math? Here's some math.
Take the $130,000 Trump pays you, subtract from that to buy the biggest dildo you can find, and add it to the inside of your ass.
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
-
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
-
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
-
@absolutezero2496 Pfft, like you have any interest in the research I would suggest.
You really don't see the problem with a guy who owns properties in various big cities telling the people who run those cities they suck? A subsidiary of Jared Kushner's firm owned housing complexes that were the subject of multiple lawsuits regarding decrepit conditions like leaking ceilings, maggots in living-room carpet, and raw human sewage coming from a kitchen sink. And mind you, those were lawsuits AGAINST tenants who tried to move out.
https://www.businessinsider.com/jared-kushner-baltimore-housing-projects-2019-7
But Jared isn't Trump, so how about this?
Styx mentioned previously that Trump was sued for housing discrimination in a lawsuit from the Justice Department that was ultimately dropped. He presented it like it was dropped due to lack of evidence, but that was a lie. The discrimination was indeed proven, but the case was essentially settled out of court (just like his hiring discrimination suit BTW - https://www.nydailynews.com/archives/money/trump-hit-race-suit-blacks-don-dealt-casino-jobs-article-1.726389).
So the relevance is this. While the Democrats who run the big cities are not beyond criticism, Trump is the last person who gets to criticize on account of the fact that he is incapable of doing a remotely competent job of running anything without getting sued.
What is Trump doing about crime in these cities that is legitimately helpful? Insulting Baltimore's leadership didn't change anyone's mind, nor will insulting the leadership of any other city change anyone's mind. If he actually wanted to do something about it, he would have.
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@BobBelson "You obviously are pushing the gas on the doubling down, insane delusional garbage and playing that hardcore mental gymnastics with just about everything. You cant even be objective and logical but pretending you have the higher ground while not even being able to string together an argument with what people are addressing to you, instead you throw in some emotional garbage gas lighting and attempts at personal attacks. Chasing your confirmation biases isn't facts, your idea of morality of tribal sides is just batshit insane."
Literally everything you just said is what Trump supporters do all the time, and yet you still pretend you're better?
"You went off in a tirade because someone called you a Socialist because of how they themselves treat tribal dissent but you're doing the exact same fucking thing when people disagree with you and putting them all in MUST BE GROUP X camps, seriously wake the fuck up."
There's a difference. When someone calls me a socialist, they're assuming something about me that they have no direct evidence to prove. When I say "you make excuses for Trump," I have an easy way to prove that. If you like Trump, you make excuses for Trump. If you say you don't like Trump but think the Democrats are worse, you make excuses for Trump. Try again.
"Your entire lack of self awareness and derangement syndrome nonsense combined with the rage makes it so damn obvious that you aren't looking to have a point, you're only looking for an argument where you keep telling yourself you're right and everyone else is wrong."
I could easily make the same claim about Trump himself, but that wouldn't make you make your mind, would it? Again, get a real medical degree and shut up about derangement.
"Grow up dude, I mean its typical for some internet spastic to lose his shit and never admit to being wrong but you don't really got anything to stand on here."
I can admit to being wrong. It's just that everyone here does a shitty job of proving how they're right.
"Your arguments have been utter shit, people have had clear cut objective valid points against the shit you been saying"
I could find someone with symbrachydactyly and count on one of their hands the times when that has happened. No one here has adequately explained how I'm wrong because they claim they don't need to cite their sources, and even when I do have a valid argument, they resort to gaslighting. I'll give you an example. One time, someone here told me to look up FBI Table 21A, which they said showed that illegal immigrants commit more violent crime than native-born citizens. Literally nothing about 21A has anything to do with immigrants, legal or not, but when I pointed that out, they ignored me and continued acting like they were right.
"I'm not even a Trump fan but"
You make excuses for him.
"I don't suffer from some fucking insane derangement like you obviously do."
Nuff [sic] sed [sic].
Try again.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Deargodwhat "You obviously are pushing the gas on the doubling down, insane delusional garbage and playing that hardcore mental gymnastics with just about everything"
You're mocking me for doubling down? Trump doubles down all the damn time; why do you all of a sudden have a problem with it?
"You cant even be objective and logical but pretending you have the higher ground while not even being able to string together an argument with what people are addressing to you, instead you throw in some emotional garbage gas lighting and attempts at personal attacks"
"Chasing your confirmation biases isn't facts, your idea of morality of tribal sides is just batshit insane"
"you're only looking for an argument where you keep telling yourself you're right and everyone else is wrong"
"Also lil thing about Tribal insanity and biases that blind you from reality is a sign of when you think someone is wrong just based on their side of which they are coming from, which is something you've directly alluded to in your posts"
Literally every one of those is what every Styx subscriber already does. Again, why do you all of a sudden have a problem with these?
"You went off in a tirade because someone called you a Socialist because of how they themselves treat tribal dissent but you're doing the exact same fucking thing when people disagree with you and putting them all in MUST BE GROUP X camps"
So if I'm doing the same thing, then once again, why do you have a problem with it now?
"Your entire lack of self awareness and derangement syndrome nonsense combined with the rage makes it so damn obvious that you aren't looking to have a point"
First of all, the medical degree you got from Trump University was a scam. Get a real one and shut the fuck up about TDS. Secondly, no one here has ever tried to make a point with me. If I'm wrong about everything, wouldn't a better strategy be to try to win me over? Instead, all you do is demonstrate how your side is full of irredeemable douchebags.
"Your arguments have been utter shit, people have had clear cut objective valid points against the shit you been saying"
Where? No one ever adequately explains anything to me because their idea of reliable sources are conspiracy theorists and liars.
"Try to know how to read law before linking something that entirely proves your claim wrong"
It didn't. No one can take their head out of their ass long enough to adequately explain how.
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
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
Dee Smith It says more about you than me that you're projecting so hard, you think I'm the unhinged, cowardly, anti-science narcissist. Or did Hannity tell you to think that way about anyone who doesn't kiss Trump's ass as hard as you do? I don't want to jump to any conclusions about you being prejudiced, but it's either that or being so gullible that you'll believe anyone who bases their entire agenda on "owning the libs" no matter how damaging it is or how incompetent they are. And I'm tempted to say it's the latter because the Russians committed election interference with the intention of helping Trump win and you still think the candidate who lost the popular vote was "duly elected." But let's address that earlier point about Trump's opponents and you projecting Trump's traits onto them.
- Unhinged: The guy who writes entire tweets in all caps and promotes unverified claims about everything isn't unhinged? The guy who thinks windmills cause cancer and that you need an ID to buy groceries isn't detached from reality?
- Cowardly: Before Trump, the only president who skipped the White House Correspondents Dinner was Ronald Reagan. And that was because he had survived an assassination attempt. But even then, he still called in from Camp David. Why didn't Trump go? Because it's "so negative." So not only is it bullshit to claim he has it worse than any other president, it's bullshit to claim his opponents are bigger cowards than he is.
- Anti-science: Please refer to "windmills cause cancer."
- Narcissist: Are you kidding? "Part of the beauty of me is that I'm very rich"? That guy isn't a narcissist? The guy who lied about the death toll from Hurricane Maria and lied how much relief funding Puerto Rico received, then gave himself an A+ on the response and said "The best thing that ever happened to Puerto Rico is President Donald J. Trump."? That guy isn't a narcissist? Bull. Fucking. Shit.
I don't claim to be defending anyone with a 100% spotless record, which is more than I can about you. For future reference, it would help your case if you didn't accuse people of having the exact same qualities as the people whose asses you spent over three years enthusiastically kissing.
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
-
LARRY MCCONEGHY While I don't deny journalists get things wrong, I find it hard to side with you when your president has been so dishonest himself. So far this year, he said the Obama administration refused to turn over documents in congressional probes (a lie), Democrats supported killing babies after birth (a lie), Harry Reid "got thrown out" (a lie), Beto O'Rourke's El Paso rally had 200 or 300 people in attendance (a lie), El Paso used to be one of the most dangerous cities in the country before a barrier was built (a lie), 95,000 non-citizens were registered to vote in Texas (a lie), Democrats demanded a steel border barrier (a lie), and that Russia invaded Afghanistan because terrorists were going into Russia (a lie). So forgive me for being unwilling to side with one liar over any other.
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
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@BWMagus 1. If there were things in the phone call he didn't want released for security reasons, maybe he shouldn't keep insisting what he released was the full transcript. Since it wasn't, he's lying.
2. "Maybe he's just an obstinate jackass who doesn't want to cooperate with assholes who launched a two year long investigation based on an obviously false dossier."
The investigation was based on what George Stephanopoulos told the Australian official.
3. "there doesn't appear to be criminal wrongdoing here"
Wrong! Campaign finance law states "It shall be unlawful for a foreign national, directly or indirectly, to make a contribution or donation of money or other thing of value, or to make an express or implied promise to make a contribution or donation, in connection with a federal, state, or local election.”
There is no evidence that Biden took any action to intentionally benefit his son, nor is there any evidence of wrongdoing by Hunter Biden. Ukrainian prosecutors found as much. So what other reason would Trump want Biden investigated unless it was to get dirt on a potential 2020 opponent (a.k.a. a "thing of value")?
"Even the Dem's witnesses cannot testify, with certainty, to anything other than what was in that phone call summary"
Gee, it's almost like a phone call between two world leaders is supposed to be confidential.
"and the Ukrainian government seems to be uniformly stating they were never told of a quid pro quo, right up to President Zelensky.
"
The same Ukrainian government that uniformly stated neither Joe nor Hunter Biden did anything wrong?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@BWMagus Impeachment is a political process, not a criminal trial, so the rules of evidence are different.
But even without that taken into consideration, yes, there is evidence Trump did something wrong. Campaign finance law states "It shall be unlawful for a foreign national, directly or indirectly, to make a contribution or donation of money or other thing of value, or to make an express or implied promise to make a contribution or donation, in connection with a federal, state, or local election.”
There is no evidence that Biden took any action to intentionally benefit his son, nor is there any evidence of wrongdoing by Hunter Biden. Ukrainian prosecutors found as much. So what other reason would Trump want Biden investigated unless it was to get dirt on a potential 2020 opponent (a.k.a. a "thing of value")?
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
-
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
-
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
-
1
-
1
-
@lo-fireviews2693 You're forgetting about insurance. The Trump administration had proposed changes to Title X, the only source of federal funds for birth control for low-income women who lack health insurance.
These changes, had the administration not been stopped in court twice, would've narrowed women’s access to clinics that discuss or refer patients to abortion providers and rolled back the requirement for employers to cover contraception in their health insurance plans. Additionally, for precedent's sake, in 2011, Texas lawmakers cut state funding for family planning by 66 percent. As a result, more than 80 family planning clinics closed. Researchers found the number of women on the most effective forms of birth control (IUDs, implants and injections) plunged by a third, and births by poor women on Medicaid increased 27 percent from 2011 to 2014.
Nice try, though.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@ootmaster1 1. "No, that's a copout... understanding sex and disease is so fucking easy today that there is no excuse for not looking these things up.."
That's kind of what I've been saying forever, but clearly having quick and easy access to all of human information hasn't stopped anyone, as evidenced by the fact that some people think windmills cause cancer.
2. "I mean you could have linked the relevant bills but ok"
https://legiscan.com/AL/bill/SB269/2018
https://legiscan.com/AL/bill/SB140/2019
3. "I'm not advocating for government handholding. It's easy to say women shouldn't have sex if they don't want to get pregnant, and that's true, but what I'm advocating is that women not be stigmatized into keeping an unwanted child."
"This is LITERALLY advocating for not wanting to deal with the consequences of their actions."
No, that's advocating for minding your own damn business. If someone got lung cancer from secondhand smoke, would you tell them they shouldn't get treatment because they need to deal with the consequences of their actions?
4. "Murder is illegal and this isn't an argument anyone is having right now? like, how is 'you can't murder unborn children' 'telling people what to do' in any meaningful distinction from telling people they can't murder people?
I shouldn't have to explain this to someone who thinks fetuses can talk.
5. "PROJECTION"
Yes, that's exactly what you were doing.
6. "The use ..... any other substance or device with the intent to terminate the pregnancy ........... The term does not include these activities if done with the intent to save the life or preserve the health of an unborn child, remove a dead unborn child, to deliver the unborn child prematurely to avoid a serious health risk to the unborn child's mother, or to preserve the health of her unborn child. The term does not include a procedure or act to terminate the pregnancy of a woman with an ectopic pregnancy, nor does it include the procedure or act to terminate the pregnancy of a woman when the unborn child has a lethal anomaly"
"Interesting that they made a whole lot of exceptions but excluded rape and incest. Suppose an incest and rape exception is also made, would this not be a much better bill?"
All of this just falls under things that qualify as health risks to the unborn child and/or the unborn child's mother. If an exception was made for rape, then it would at least be a more consistent bill because rape and health risks are beyond a person's control. Incest, though? By your own words, people should deal with the consequences of their actions. Unless a woman got raped by her uncle or something, I would suspect you would still disapprove of her decision to get an abortion.
1
-
@ootmaster1
1. https://www.al.com/news/2019/05/alabama-abortion-ban-passes-read-the-bill.html
2. I agree that parents should talk to their kids about sex, but expecting parents to know everything about every topic is unrealistic.
3. The one from last year was Alabama SB 269, and the one from last month was Alabama SB 140.
4. "No, what YOU are saying is, women have no control over their lives and need the government to handhold them through their entire lives so they don't have to own up to the responsibility of the actions they have taken.... i cant imagine how this would backfire...
"
I'm not advocating for government handholding. It's easy to say women shouldn't have sex if they don't want to get pregnant, and that's true, but what I'm advocating is that women not be stigmatized into keeping an unwanted child. If you don't approve of abortion, no one is forcing you to get one. And besides, don't conservatives go on and on about how they won't stand for liberals telling them what to do or whatever? Like, your whole thing with the mainstream media is that they try to tell people what to think. How the hell is forcing pro-life legislation onto everyone (when you yourself will never be personally affected by it) any better than "government handholding"?
5. "You are arguing against a caricature because you don't want to have a legitimate discussion, because you are a smug ideologue."
You took the words right out of my mouth.
1
-
@ootmaster1 If killing someone is justified if it's in self defense, then it must also be the case that aborting a baby is justified for the sake of a medical emergency, yes? And indeed, the Alabama abortion law says exceptions would be made to the ban in cases where it prevents a serious health risk to the mother. However, women can still get abortions and those who have appointments can still go forward with the procedure.
The difference is that abortion doctors would be charged with a felony for performing (or even attempting) the procedure. Oh, also, you know comprehensive sex education? The thing that's been proven to help lower teen pregnancy rates, which is the kind of thing for which someone would want to get an abortion? Alabama doesn't have that, which explains why it has some of the highest teen pregnancy and STI rates in the country. Senator Tom Whatley introduced a sex education bill just last year, and it would've been good for the state to have if it didn't die. He reintroduced it last month, and it passed the state Senate, but what does it say about Alabama's priorities that they signed into law a bill that makes it a felony to perform abortions before signing into law a bill that would've solved a contributing factor to abortion? Also, another reason for women getting abortions is that they can't afford to raise a child. Alabama is the sixth poorest state in the country with over 800,000 residents living below the poverty line. That's 17.2%, compared to the national average of 14%. So basically, what Alabama is doing is telling women "You can't get rid of an unwanted child you can't afford to raise if you don't want your doctor to get charged with a felony. You can take birth control or have your partner use a condom, but birth control pills might not work if you're also taking antibiotics and condoms have to be used properly to avoid breaking. Oh, but you wouldn't know any of that since we don't make comprehensive sex ed mandatory. But hey, maybe we'll make an exception if your life literally depends on it. Good luck."
Seems like kind of a mixed message is all I'm saying.
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
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
@Warren_Peace 1. If by "basic realities," you mean "you voted for a serial liar whose university was sued for fraud, who lost money on casinos, who cheated on his wives, and who openly invited foreign entities to commit election interference on camera," then who's the one ignoring them?
2. No, when I used that phrase, I was explaining Trump's perspective. By a mile, he got more free coverage than everyone else in the 2016. And 100,000,000% of that was from him saying shit like "Mexico is sending us rapists" (they're not, for the record - more native born citizens are arrested for rape than non citizens) and "Megyn Kelly was bleeding out of her wherever." The fact that he got elected means that either the media has no effect on him (in which case, you're being a whiny little bitch) or the media did have an effect, and it was in his favor. My money is on the latter, because he uses the negative coverage to paint himself - a multi-billionaire - as the victim. A victim who, need I remind you, was documented thoroughly as:
1. Being a serial liar
2. Having lost money on casinos, as well as multiple failed businesses
3. Having cheated on his wives
4. Having cheated Trump University students
5. Having cheated employees and contractors
These are not baseless accusations. You're just a moron.
Go fuck yourself.
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
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
@angrytheclown801 Are you mishearing me on purpose? Maybe I should have led with this, but let's ignore the fact that he violated campaign finance law with the Stormy Daniels payment and focus on this: Trump wasn't losing his own money. He said that real estate depreciation explains the losses; his buildings were getting older and less valuable every year. For that to make sense, he would have had to own tens of billions in property, which is absolutely implausible. A likelier explanation is that his casinos were losing money at the time and a number of his endeavors were going bankrupt. I mean, think about it. Did Trump even have a billion dollars to lose at the time? He claimed he was still worth $2 billion by the end of this period, but that's unlikely. Forbes had his net worth at $600 million in 1985. Subtract a billion, and what's left? See, most of the money he lost belonged to the banks and bond investors who had funded his acquisitions. Then Trump got hundreds of millions of debt forgiven in the 1990s as his projects folded one after the other. But to the IRS, canceled debt is the same as income. If you don’t have to pay back a dollar you said you did, you’ve effectively made a dollar. Trump claimed other people’s losses as his losses, but never accounted for the money he didn’t have to pay back.
So my question isn't "Can Trump be impeached for this?" My question is "How does anyone look at this and still think Trump is more ethical and competent than anyone in Washington?"
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
-
1
-
@zoephin6205 Okay, I'm calling bullshit. While Trump himself attributed his first run of reversals and bankruptcies to the recession, the article does address the fact that he wasn't being entirely accurate. There's still the period between 1985 and 1988 during which nothing that happened to Trump could be blamed on the recession.
"The numbers show that in 1985, Mr. Trump reported losses of $46.1 million from his core businesses — largely casinos, hotels and retail space in apartment buildings.
From 1986 through 1988, while his core businesses languished under increasingly unsupportable debt, Mr. Trump made millions of dollars in the stock market by suggesting that he was about to take over companies. But the figures show that he lost most, if not all, of those gains after investors stopped taking his takeover talk seriously.
At his nadir, in the post-recession autumn of 1991, Mr. Trump testified before a congressional task force, calling for changes in the tax code to benefit his industry. 'The real estate business — we're in an absolute depression,' Mr. Trump told the lawmakers, adding: 'I see no sign of any kind of upturn at all. There is no incentive to invest. Everyone is doing badly, everyone.'
Everyone, perhaps, except his father, Fred Trump.
While Donald Trump reported hundreds of millions of dollars in losses for 1990 and 1991, Fred Trump's returns showed a positive income of $53.9 million, with only one major loss: $15 million invested in his son's latest apartment project.
The year was 1985, and Mr. Trump appeared to be on top of the world. He was still riding high from the completion of his first few projects — the Grand Hyatt Hotel, Trump Tower and another Manhattan apartment building, and one Atlantic City casino. He also owned the New Jersey Generals of the United States Football League. As the year played out, he borrowed hundreds of millions of dollars to fuel a wave of purchases, acquiring a second casino ($351.8 million), a Manhattan hotel ($80 million), the Mar-a-Lago property in Florida ($10 million), a New York hospital he intended to replace with an apartment building ($60 million) and an undeveloped expanse of railroad yards on the West Side of Manhattan ($85 million), where he planned to construct an entire neighborhood, including a 150-story tower envisioned as the world's tallest. But what the newly revealed tax information makes clear is that, with his vast debt and other expenses on those properties, Mr. Trump's fortunes were already on the way down. His yearly carrying costs on the rail yards would rise to $18.7 million. He would not be able to convert Mar-a-Lago into a moneymaking club for another decade. The apartments on the hospital site would not be ready for sale, as Trump Palace, until 1990, and another residential project would be stalled for years. The football league would soon fold. Because his businesses were generally created as partnerships, the companies themselves did not pay federal income taxes. Instead their results wound up on Mr. Trump's personal ledger. Beyond the $46.1 million loss that his core businesses logged in 1985, Mr. Trump's tax information shows that he carried over $5.6 million in losses from prior years. The IRS data on one-third of high-income tax returns that year lists only three taxpayers with greater losses.
In 1986, he bought out his partners in Trump Tower and the Trump Plaza Hotel and Casino. He bought an apartment building in West Palm Beach for $43 million. His business losses for the year: $68.7 million. About two weeks before the stock market crash of Oct. 19, 1987, he spent $29 million on a 282-foot yacht. Months later he bought the Plaza Hotel for $407 million. He recorded $42.2 million in core business losses for 1987, and $30.4 million for 1988."
Has any of that been verified? I don't know. But I'm not convinced you've read the actual article when your excuse was already addressed in it. And please don't lecture me about demanding verifiable information when you clearly don't hold your president to that standard. Did you ask him to verify his claim that windmills cause cancer? Or that his father was born in Germany? Or that the Russia invaded Afghanistan because of terrorists? Or that you need a voter ID to buy groceries? Or that he was the first Republican to win Wisconsin since Eisenhower? If not, there's a word I'm thinking of, and you're full of it.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@spellmadam2947 Well, if I don't need to spell it out, perhaps you can answer my question. If this isn't a big deal, why would Trump feel the need to sue to prevent the release of his financial documents? And before you tell me it's because he's tired of people fishing into his personal life to find ways to smear him, these are actual things Trump tweeted.
- June 6, 2012: "Why is @BarackObama spending millions to try and hide his records? He is the least transparent President--ever--and he ran on transparency."
- July 17, 2012: "For the sake of transparency, @BarackObama should release all his college applications and transcripts--both from Occidental and Columbia."
- July 17, 2012: "Why would @BarackObama be spending millions of dollars to hide his records if there was nothing to hide?"
- July 17, 2012: "If @BarackObama had such a wonderful academic record why wouldn't he want to show it?
- July 19, 2012: "Breitbart gets it! Vote now--Obama should release his college application records & grades"
- October 30, 2012: "Why does Obama believe he shouldn't comply with record releases that his predecessors did of their own volition? Hiding something?"
So tell me when Obama ever sued to prevent the release of his financial documents. Go ahead, I'll wait.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@orppranator5230
- November 2, 2011: "Why is @BarackObama letting the Taliban know when our troops are leaving?” (Remember last December when Trump posted a Twitter video revealing the location of a covert Navy Seal operation?)
- June 6, 2012: "Why is @BarackObama spending millions to try and hide his records? He is the least transparent President--ever--and he ran on transparency." (Trump sued to block congressional subpoena of his financial records and instructed White House staff to ignore House subpoenas)
- July 17, 2012: "For the sake of transparency, @BarackObama should release all his college applications and transcripts--both from Occidental and Columbia." (Trump paid Michael Cohen to intimidate his old schools to keep his records sealed)
- July 17, 2012: "Why would @BarackObama be spending millions of dollars to hide his records if there was nothing to hide?" (See above)
- July 17, 2012: "If @BarackObama had such a wonderful academic record why wouldn't he want to show it? (See above)
- July 19, 2012: "Breitbart gets it! Vote now--Obama should release his college application records & grades" (See above)
- August 1, 2012: "The deficits under @BarackObama are the highest in America's history. Why is he bankrupting our country? (In March of this year, the U.S. posted the biggest monthly budget deficit in American history)
- September 11, 2012: "Whatever happened to Obama's 'independent investigation' into national security leaks from his administration? Where's the media?" (Please refer back to the above mentioned Navy Seal operation)
- September 26, 2012: “Obama's complaints about Republicans stopping his agenda are BS since he had full control for two years. He can never take responsibility." (Need I explain this one?)
- October 30, 2012: "Why does Obama believe he shouldn't comply with record releases that his predecessors did of their own volition? Hiding something?" (Again, Trump sued to block congressional subpoena of his financial records and paid Michael Cohen to intimidate his old schools to keep his records sealed)
- September 7, 2013: "PresObama is not busy talking to Congress about Syria..he is playing golf ...go figure" (Trump spent 3 days golfing after he declared a national emergency that he himself admitted he didn't need to declare; overall, Trump spent significantly more time as president playing golf than Obama, so much so that there's a website dedicated to tracking it - https://trumpgolfcount.com/)
- October 13, 2014: "Can you believe that,with all of the problems and difficulties facing the U.S., President Obama spent the day playing golf.Worse than Carter" (See above)
- November 5, 2014: "I'm worried about Obama using executive power to pass immigration law" (National emergency, anyone?)
1
-
@petehawthorne1561 And where do you think they learned that?
- September 13, 2011: "How can the economy ever recover when @BarackObama keeps threatening the private sector with more taxes. This is no way to spur growth." (Tariffs, anyone?)
- November 2, 2011: "Why is @BarackObama letting the Taliban know when our troops are leaving?” (Remember last December when Trump posted a Twitter video revealing the location of a covert Navy Seal operation?)
- March 1, 2012: "The Chinese laugh at how weak and pathetic our government is in combating intellectual property theft." (Warner Bros. filed a copyright claim over Trump's use of the score from The Dark Knight Rises)
- June 6, 2012: "Why is @BarackObama spending millions to try and hide his records? He is the least transparent President--ever--and he ran on transparency." (Trump sued to block congressional subpoena of his financial records and instructed White House staff to ignore House subpoenas)
- July 17, 2012: "For the sake of transparency, @BarackObama should release all his college applications and transcripts--both from Occidental and Columbia." (Trump paid Michael Cohen to intimidate his old schools to keep his records sealed)
- July 17, 2012: "Why would @BarackObama be spending millions of dollars to hide his records if there was nothing to hide?" (See above)
- July 17, 2012: "If @BarackObama had such a wonderful academic record why wouldn't he want to show it? (See above)
- July 19, 2012: "Breitbart gets it! Vote now--Obama should release his college application records & grades" (See above)
- August 1, 2012: "The deficits under @BarackObama are the highest in America's history. Why is he bankrupting our country? (In March of this year, the U.S. posted the biggest monthly budget deficit in American history)
- September 11, 2012: "Whatever happened to Obama's 'independent investigation' into national security leaks from his administration? Where's the media?" (Please refer back to the above mentioned Navy Seal operation)
- September 26, 2012: “Obama's complaints about Republicans stopping his agenda are BS since he had full control for two years. He can never take responsibility." (Need I explain this one?)
- October 30, 2012: "Why does Obama believe he shouldn't comply with record releases that his predecessors did of their own volition? Hiding something?" (Again, Trump sued to block congressional subpoena of his financial records and paid Michael Cohen to intimidate his old schools to keep his records sealed)
- September 7, 2013: "PresObama is not busy talking to Congress about Syria..he is playing golf ...go figure" (Trump spent 3 days golfing after he declared a national emergency that he himself admitted he didn't need to declare; overall, Trump spent significantly more time as president playing golf than Obama, so much so that there's a website dedicated to tracking it - https://trumpgolfcount.com/)
- October 13, 2014: "Can you believe that,with all of the problems and difficulties facing the U.S., President Obama spent the day playing golf.Worse than Carter" (See above)
- November 5, 2014: "I'm worried about Obama using executive power to pass immigration law" (National emergency, anyone?)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@WombRaider7878 Even if that were even remotely the same thing, would that make everything Trump does okay?
Those fines on the Obama campaign covered civil violations, which were different than the criminal infractions admitted to by Cohen.
The major issue concerned the timely documentation of donations made in the 20 days before the election, during which the FEC requires official notice of contributions over $1,000 to be submitted no more than two days after those donations were received. While the fines leveled against the Obama campaign were among the largest in the FEC’s history, so was the amount of money raised by the Obama campaign. Further, the FEC does not have criminal capabilities. All of the criminal cases have to be prosecuted by the Department of Justice. For a criminal violation of election law to be enforced by the DOJ (which was the case with the Stormy Daniels payment), the violation must be considered both intentional and serious. People often have reporting violations, which is what happened with the Obama campaign. With the Stormy Daniels payment, the DOJ determined there was a criminal intent to hide a campaign contribution, so it falls within a criminal violation as opposed to a civil one to be enforced by the FEC. The infractions committed by the 2008 Obama campaign were not alleged to be intentional, and the FEC did not consider the campaign’s documentation lapses as rising to the level of a serious offense prosecutable by the DOJ. Meanwhile, Cohen admitted to violating the following:
- 52 U.S. Code § 30116 – Limitations on contributions and expenditures
- 52 U.S. Code § 30118 – Contributions or expenditures by national banks, corporations, or labor organizations
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
-
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Alex Beyer Amazing. Every word of what you just said was wrong. First of all, did I say "alt-right" or "far-right"? No, I didn't. But more importantly, I know for a fact you have zero evidence because you haven't presented any. All you've given me is bullshit. What last three shootings do you mean? The two in Florida and the one in Jersey City? If so, let's put them next to the dates of the last three Democrat debates:
Debate: October 15
Debate: November 20
Miramar shooting: December 5
Pensacola shooting: December 6
Jersey City shooting: December 10
Debate: December 19
If the DNC were trying to boost ratings, why not "schedule" the shootings closer to the actual debates? The media is unlikely to still be covering a mass shooting over a week later given how quickly the headlines change, so if that were the DNC's strategy, it would be a bad one. That's precisely why it isn't their strategy because your claim is bullshit.
Strike one.
There was no "CA garlic" shooting. The only shooting I could find committed by a confirmed Bernie supporter was in 2017 when Steve Scalise was shot. The El Paso shooter, however, was not a registered Democrat, much less a socialist. I know because a Twitter account with the suspect's name liked tweets featuring a #BuildtheWall hashtag and a photo of guns that spelled out "Trump." And the suspect's manifesto is so anti-immigration that there is no conceivable way he would've been a socialist. Also, I looked up "New Mexico shooter Elizabeth Warren supporter." There was nothing. Nada. Zip. Zilch. As for the Pulse nightclub shooter, do you genuinely believe that having unclear motives makes a shooter a socialist?
The good news is you got one kind of right. The bad news is that you said “most” shooters are socialists, so you're still full of shit.
Strike two.
"What about the one after the Russia hoax bombed and Mullet proved no collusion"
Wow, you're stupid. Trump was not exonerated on obstruction of justice, a foreign government interfered in an election to help him win, and the special counsel's name was not "Mullet," you fucking idiot. And again, which shooting are you talking about? Whichever it was, you still have zero evidence tying it to the DNC.
Strike three.
You have nothing. You won nothing. You are nothing.
Fuck you.
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
-
@californicationendlesssumm2811 That wasn't my question. And you're wrong.
A. His tweets are for his supporters. I know because I've seen the replies to his tweets and his supporters repeat the same verbal rimming every time no matter what's in the tweet.
B. He's not repairing the country. If he were repairing the country and so confident in the success of his efforts, why would he want to distract anyone away from that? This is the most attention hungry individual on the planet, and you're telling me he doesn't want people to notice when he does something supposedly good? Bullshit.
C. The stock market is not the economy, and it sure as hell isn't an indication of job growth. In December 2018, job growth was good, but stocks were down. So when Trump gloats about the stock market, it's bullshit. Especially since it performed better under Obama: https://www.macrotrends.net/2481/stock-market-performance-by-president
D. There is no "shiny new wall." The article Styx linked to in the other video he released this morning said 100 miles of the 450 promised by the end of this year had been "built." What he neglects to mention, however, is that most of what has been "built" was replacing existing barriers, and oh yeah, it took Trump three years to reach less than a quarter of his stated goal. And the wall would be so ridiculously easy to climb that it's almost sad: https://rockandice.com/climbing-news/impossible-to-climb-no-more-a-recap-of-the-border-wall-climbing-competition/
E. Obama was president when bin Laden was killed, but I'll give Trump as much credit now as he gave Obama then: https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/252874018955354114
F. He didn't "expose" the left. He's a corrupt lying con man who committed every type of fraud in the books. He gets no credit for "exposing" the left when all he does is accuse them of doing the very things he himself has actually done.
G. "He has done more in 3 years than all other presidents combined"
Washington was a war hero. Lincoln ended the Civil War. FDR brought us out of the Great Depression. What has Trump done? Take credit for other people's successes. And yet that's apparently enough to get you to kiss his ass because your standards are that lacking.
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@lucianraphael9527 I was told by other Styx subscribers that all politicians lied. So why are you asking me how he lied?
He lied when he said the United Kingdom gives £350 million a week to the European Union, which was one of the Leave campaign's main talking points, mind you. According to the UK Statistics Authority, the figure is £289 million a week and doesn’t include what the European Union gives the United Kingdom in return. "Oh, but he was being perfectly factual," you'll say. "He just didn't mention the money the E.U. gives back, and that sort of statistical manipulation is common in politics and was done by both sides."
First of all, of course he didn't mention the money the E.U. gives back because that was counter to his entire reasoning for leaving the E.U.: England gives and gets nothing in return. Leaving out that kind of relevant information is no better than lying. But more importantly, yes, all politicians lie. The difference is you're defending Boris Johnson's lies. If the European Union is so unpopular that Brexit is an inevitability, neither Johnson nor anyone else in the Leave campaign would not need to lie about it.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@UCV3ZGezShP992F7b47DFRQA You're the one who said "I'm talking about the manifesto's these so called parliamentarians were elected on."
First of all, you don't use an apostrophe in "manifestos," moron. Secondly, I made the point about you not using the word manifestos because most people use the word in the context of something a mass shooter would release and you called me stupid for not catching on that you weren't talking about anyone releasing a text or a video or anything like that. My counterpoint to your original comment was that Boris Johnson and the Leave campaign blatantly lied and yet you're still defending them. The fact that it doesn't bother you means you forfeit the right to claim the moral high ground. Yes, all politicians lie, but if that's how you avoid holding Boris Johnson and the Leave campaign accountable for said lies, you have no standards. If leaving the E.U. is essential to "getting sovereignty back" to its rightful place (BTW, it's "its rightful place," not "it's rightful place," idiot), then again, Boris Johnson and the Leave campaign should never have needed to lie so blatantly about it.
You're a liar, a moron, and an apologist. Go to hell.
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
-
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
-
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
-
@Elron 1. "A Democrat anti-Trump 'whistleblower' with ties to Adam Shiff?"
First of all, it's "Schiff." Secondly, if you don't know the exact identity of the whistleblower, how can you be so sure anything you claimed about this person is correct? From what I understand, the person is a White House employee who worked in the previous three administrations. How does that prove he's either a Democrat or anti-Trump? Oh, and regarding Adam Schiff, the whistleblower contacted a staffer, not Schiff himself. As I understand it, the whistleblower felt the White House would bury the complaint, so they gave it to Congress and were told to send the complaint through the proper process, which they did.
2. We did not read the transcript. It was a summary. The first page of it contains the words "not a verbatim transcript," which makes sense because it says on the document that the conversation took thirty minutes. How could a thirty minute conversation fit on 4.5 pages? But even in the SUMMARY, Trump still asked a foreign government to investigate a political rival, even though Ukrainian prosecutors found no evidence that Joe or Hunter Biden committed any wrongdoing.
3. 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
-
@ootmaster1 Let's recap. According to Senator Jacob Howard:
"Every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons."
How would a foreigner be born in the United States? Are we talking about "anchor babies"? I see, so a child born to a foreigner who did not become a legal, naturalized citizen wouldn't be a U.S. citizen. The problem with that is that the Fourteenth Amendment excluded "untaxed Indians," i.e. Native Americans living on reservations. The Indian Citizenship Act of 1924 granted citizenship to all Native Americans, including those born on tribal lands. But the Fourteenth Amendment was adopted in 1868, meaning that in those 56 years, a Native American couple could travel to one of the states in the Union, have a child, and still be considered an "alien," legally speaking. So am I missing something or was excluding Native Americans from citizenship also Howard's intent?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@ootmaster1 (facepalm)
Seriously?
Okay, fine, you clearly need this spelled out for you.
Does voter fraud happen? Yes. But statistically speaking, it's virtually nonexistent. And if it wasn't, the White House has done a terrible job of proving it. Sean Spicer once said ""I think there's been studies. There's one that came out of Pew in 2008 that showed 14 percent of people who voted were noncitizens. There's other studies that have been presented to him. It's a belief he maintains."
There is no study that shows 14 percent of the votes cast in 2008 were cast by noncitizens. That would've added up to over 18 million fraudulent votes, which is implausible because the total noncitizen population in the 2010 census was about 22.5 million. As for the study that "came out of Pew in 2008," it actually came out in 2012, and it’s about outdated voter rolls -- not fraudulent votes. The study found that about 24 million, or one in every eight, voter registrations in the United States are inaccurate or no longer valid, but it did not find evidence of actual voter fraud. The study was about record-keeping that is badly managed and in disarray. Meanwhile, the study that showed "14 percent of people who voted were noncitizens" was widely criticized for its methodology.
Furthermore, one investigative team found 56 cases of noncitizens voting between 2000 and 2011.
So yes, it happens, but it's so rare that you have a better chance of winning the lottery twice than spotting voter fraud.
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
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@zigzag1630 So you choose to continue mocking me like the NPC you are instead of overlooking the fact that Russia interfered in a federal election and Trump did nothing to prevent them from doing it again? You really are only good for kissing Trump's ass. Also, the word "collusion" doesn't appear anywhere in that text you just quoted, you said nothing about the obstruction of justice charge for which Mueller hasn't exonerated Trump, you're an insecure douchebag who resorts to trolling to feel something resembling a sense of accomplishment in your otherwise massive disappointment of a life, and you're still a lazy, unfunny asshole who kisses Trump's ass too much to be taken seriously. I checked your profile. You have no videos, no subscribers, no links to other websites. For all intents and purposes, you serve the same function as a Russian bot, and that is all you will ever be: a fake who's good for nothing but sucking Trump's dick. Fuck the incompetent idiots who raised you, fuck everyone who lied and said you would grow up to be special, and fuck you.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@sirmikalus9923 You think I only dislike Trump because it's trendy? Wrong, you fucking moron! I remember at the start of the decade when he was a fucking idiot lying about Obama's birth certificate and he hasn't become any less of a fucking piece of shit. As for Styx, he pushes anti-liberal propaganda every day and you believe every word of it, even when it's misleading at best. "AOC blocked The Daily Caller on Twitter? Oh, never mind the fact that Trump blocked so many people on Twitter that a federal judge had to make him unblock them, or the fact that Styx blocked me on Twitter for daring to ask what sources he used to conclude that the Pittsburgh synagogue shooter was a communist Never Trumper (despite there being no evidence of him being a communist and he only disliked Trump because he thought Trump didn't hate Jews enough). Let's laugh at the liberal!"
I don't need to assume everyone I don't like is a Trump supporter. I don't assume someone is a Trump supporter for making me miss a red light. I do, however, assume someone is a Trump supporter when they talk exactly like he does, just like what you're doing. You may not claim to be a Trump supporter, but if someone showed me your comment with your username blanked out and told me it was Trump himself who wrote it, I would believe them. You clearly aren't paying attention, but while your head is shoved far up Trump's ass, maybe you'll notice he doesn't have a spine and that's why he needs people like you to fondle his junk for him. That's the only thing you're good for, after all.
Kindly fuck off, you fucking failure.
1
-
@jamesdunn9609 Mueller was investigating conspiracy, which requires "two parties taking actions that were informed by or responsive to the other’s actions or interests." That's a specific charge, unlike collusion which is defined more broadly as, in your words, any links or coordination.
Indeed, the Mueller report clearly states:
"In evaluating whether evidence about collective action of multiple individuals constituted
a crime, we applied the framework of conspiracy law, not the concept of 'collusion.' In so doing, the Office recognized that the word 'collud[e]' was used in communications with the Acting Attorney General confirming certain aspects of the investigation's scope and that the term has frequently been invoked in public reporting about the investigation. But collusion is not a specific offense or theory of liability found in the United States Code, nor is it a term of art in federal criminal law. For those reasons, the Office's focus in analyzing questions of joint criminal liability
was on conspiracy as defined in federal law. In connection with that analysis, we addressed the
factual question whether members of the Trump Campaign 'coordinat[ed]' - a term that appears
in the appointment order - with
Russian election interference activities."
Try again.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@zigzag1630 1. That's not a self-own. That's me pointing out that you're a lying prick, you moron. And whether or not I have a girlfriend shouldn't matter to you anyway.
2. https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/3726408-Rosenstein-letter-appointing-Mueller-special.html
Do you see the word "collusion" in here? No, you don't, because you clearly didn't read it or the full page I posted. The term "collusion" doesn't refer to a specific federal crime. Collusive acts, or "acts of collusion," does. Collusion by itself is not specific enough to be a criminal charge. Indeed, the article says "Even though collusion is not a legal term of art, quite a few offenses are characterized by collusive acts." Heck, by your own words, collusion is a crime under specific circumstances, such as in a case of conspiracy.
You're a failure.
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Marco Polo1 The report provides evidence to suggest that the Trump campaign actively worked with the Russian government to improve its electoral chances.
First, Russia repeatedly reached out to the Trump campaign to establish a connection to the Kremlin. The Russian contacts consisted of business connections, offers of assistance to the campaign, invitations for candidate Trump and Putin to meet in person, invitations for campaign officials and representatives of the Russian government to meet, and policy positions seeking improved U.S.-Russian relations.
More importantly, the Trump campaign was receptive, as evidenced by Manafort’s meetings with Konstantin Kilimnik, a Russian political consultant with a history of connections to the GRU intelligence agency. The FBI believed he had links to the Kremlin, a view shared by Manafort and Gates. Yet despite Gates’s suspicions, Manafort repeatedly met with Kilimnik, worked with him to develop a pro-Russian Ukraine policy that Trump could implement if elected, and regularly shared polling data with him.
Does that mean Trump himself is responsible? No. But again, the Russians still interfered in the election to help him win.
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@MrGrosBonnet If I'm a globalist, then you're Amy Schumer. At no point have I suggested we need to defer completely to the United Nations. What I am saying is that establishing stable international relationships is important, and Trump is fucking it up royally. Take Australia. The United States is Australia’s fourth largest export market, its second largest source of imports, and its largest investor. Meanwhile, Australia is the United States' fifth largest investor. According to surveys, 60% of Australians hold unfavorable view of the US as a result of President Donald Trump. Only 29% of Australians have confidence in Trump, compared to the 87% who had confidence Obama. A record low 55% of Australians believe the US could act responsibly in the world, compared to 83% in 2011. 70% of Australians don't think Trump could act responsibly. I'm not saying we need to base our whole foreign policy around what Australians think, but there's audio of former Australian Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull mocking Trump's reputation as a serial liar. Wasn't Trump's campaign centered around the idea that America will be respected by the rest of the world? Even if we don't have the United Nations, it won't make us any more respected if the president already pissed off our allies.
But getting back to the "globalist" point, congratulations on being a hypocrite who thinks making baseless assumptions are only okay when you do it. I've been to Canada, studied abroad in Guatemala, and visited Israel three times. So thank you for your service, but maybe for future reference, you could ask how much travelling I've done instead of making an ass of yourself.
1
-
@luckerooni7628 I'm not suggesting we need to do everything by the United Nations' rules. I'm saying there's a reason Brexit is such a clusterfuck and it would be wise of us not to repeat that mistake, lest the withdrawal lead to any unintended consequences. For example, the United States is one of the world's foremost economic superpowers, right? If we left the UN, don't you think some other country would want to take our spot, so to speak? Also, assuming cuts are necessary if we leave the U.N., the first will likely be made to programs in which the U.S. invested a lot of time, effort and money. It's kind of like when someone breaks up with you and you throw out all their stuff. Representation of American interests would falter abroad and the perception that the U.S. failed to heed global concerns would grow.
Now, if Trump ran on a platform of making America respected throughout the world (as he did), would this be an effective way to do it? No. No, it would not.
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
-
1
-
@livensflame In what universe would the Remain campaign's lies make them worse than the Leave campaign? If Brexit is such a good and necessary thing for Britain, then neither Boris nor anyone in the Leave campaign would ever have needed to lie about it. And yet there is an entire website cataloging Boris' lies:
https://boris-johnson-lies.com/
One side's lies do not magically make the other side's lies true. You should not be demanding the Remain campaign be held accountable for any lies they told if you are not going to hold the Leave campaign to the same standard. And as for Brits wanting Brexit, to what degree?
The Parliamentary representatives of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland voted against the Withdrawal Agreement. The Tories lost Scotland and Wales and even Northern Ireland, which saw big gains for the right wing DUP, doesn't support Brexit.
And I remind you, people in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are UK citizens, meaning their voices are no less important.
As for England, let's look at the numbers.
52% of Brits voted to Leave in the 2016 referendum.
43.6% of Brits voted Tory in the 2019 election.
Gee, it's as if fewer Brits still want Brexit.
But please keep telling me Styx knows what he's talking about.
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
-
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@BaltimoreAndOhioRR The Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 bans foreign nationals "from making expenditures to expressly advocate the election or defeat of a political candidate." It's also stated in 52 U.S. Code § 30121 that it "shall be unlawful for a foreign national, directly or indirectly, to make a contribution or donation of money or other thing of value...in connection with a federal, state, or local election." If the Russians aimed to shape the outcome of the presidential election, that would meet the BCRA's definition of an expenditure.
And you don't get dirt on an opponent unless you think you can use it to help you win, which makes dirt on an opponent a "thing of value" according to the U.S. Code. Whether gathering dirt on an opponent is illegal or not just by itself, recruiting foreign entities to help gather dirt is illegal because it's conspiracy to break federal election law. So when Trump asked Russia to help find Hillary's emails, and when Manafort gave polling data to an individual with ties to Russian intelligence (which would've influenced how Russian nationals spent money on U.S. election efforts), that was indeed a criminal act. And by the way, this is stuff I found online in, like, ten minutes. Don't call me an idiot when I'm still putting in more effort than you.
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
-
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Emperor's Champion I know it's legal. But here's a list of countries that legalized it before we did:
The Netherlands, Belgium, Spain, Canada, South Africa, Norway, Sweden, Portugal, Iceland, Argentina, Denmark, Uruguay, New Zealand, Brazil, France, England and Wales, Scotland, Luxembourg, Finland, the Pitcairn Islands, Ireland, and Greenland.
If people in those countries are also complaining that gay people play victim too much, I have never heard it to anywhere near the extent that it happens here.
Grow up.
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
-
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
-
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Did you see Lauren Southern go to Australia and ask what people thought of Lauren Southern? She didn't disguise herself or anything, she just pretended she was someone else and interviewed people what they thought of her. Spoiler alert: the vast majority of people didn't know or care who she was. When she said Lauren Southern was a Nazi, one woman said, "I'm not sure if we should kill her, but I don't think we should be listening to what she's saying." There are a few people who did say Southern should be killed, but they're laughing and obviously not taking her seriously in the slightest, perhaps sensing that it's a really weird thing to run up to someone on the street and ask.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aQrnH20sVHk
I bring this up because if anyone Trump was defending was even remotely worth taking seriously, it would've been noble of him to take a stand against censorship. Just as long as you forget that Trump blocked multiple people on Twitter, to the degree that a judge had to rule he couldn't do that. And sure, blocking people is different from kicking them off a website, but what does it say that he thinks Lauren Southern should be taken seriously and not, say, Stephen King?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@FedUpSouthernGirl "If this was any other president holding up a budget proposal over what he saw as the most important thing to protect/ensure American citizens' safety, would you call him a troll? Or would you want a duly elected president to cave because the representatives would not give less than 1% of the budget to their detractors?"
Losing the popular vote makes you a "duly elected" leader? Does that mean La La Land is still a Best Picture winner? Anyway, I'm convinced Trump doesn't give a shit about a border wall and only brought it up during the campaign because it got him voters and media coverage. He had two years of his party controlling every branch of government and passed an executive order five days into office to get a wall built. And yet, what's the most progress he's made so far after two years? Prototypes. And people would still be able to tunnel under them, by the way. Trump had a briefing recently where he was told border patrol agents found tunnels going across the border in areas where walls were already built. If he truly cared, he would be doing everything in his power to ensure that the wall was the most secured thing in history. However, one idea he had for the wall was to make it see-through. How the fuck would that make it secure? So to answer your question, if this were any other president, I would not call him a troll. Because in that case, I would expect them to put more thought into a wall than "BUILD A WALL!! I DON'T CARE HOW, JUST BUILD IT!!"
"Trump has just been the only president to not do backroom deals at least in recent history and as far as the mainstream media and its reporting is concerned."
Right, because when I think of Trump, I think of transparency /s
"Fed govt should NEVER have had its hand in the states' budgets as much as they do."
That whole section of your comment I can understand. I'm not going to argue with you on any of that.
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Warren_Peace Don't lecture me on human nature. I know fear is a motivator. That's why people elected Trump: they're afraid brown people will come and ruin the country that white people got by committing genocide on red people. If you tell someone they can't have something, there is a good chance it will make them want it more. You have to make people not want to come here, and given the choice between staying in a Central America plagued by cartel violence and moving to, say, a country that openly brags about being the greatest, free-est nation on the planet, the choice isn't hard to make. The grass is always greener, as they say. And yes, I'm sure you'll say that it's all the more reason for them to migrate legally, but here's the thing. The average monthly net income in, say, Honduras is equivalent to about $18 after tax. That's $216 a year. Meanwhile, here's a page listing the costs of legal immigration: https://www.supermoney.com/2018/01/immigration-help-legal-costs-immigrating-us-pay/
I'm not saying that makes it okay for people to emigrate here illegally, but if there's an easier solution to the cartel violence, I'm sure everyone in Central America would love to hear it.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@droach1979 1. "He's been 'disproven' over and over again."
No, I haven't. Calling me a libtard doesn't count.
2. Here's the screening process outlined.
https://www.criminaljusticedegreeschools.com/criminal-justice-careers/ice-agent/
Now, normally, if you have committed a felony, you can't get a job as an ICE agent. However, 10,000 ICE agents were hired as part of Trump's crackdown on immigration. It was the biggest ramp-up since the mid-2000s, when the number of Customs and Border Protection agents doubled. But hiring so many new employees so fast - about 17,000 agents over six years - meant the CBP couldn’t properly vet new employees, which led to a flood of corruption cases and allegations of excessive use of force. Meanwhile, you can look up "ICE lawsuits" and "ICE agents breaking the law" and you'll find gems like this one from the Government Accountability Office where ICE agents regularly failed to follow procedures when deciding on whether to deport former military service members.
https://www.gao.gov/assets/700/699549.pdf
3. Ronald Reagan was the only other president to skip the WHCD, and that was because he was recovering from an assassination attempt. Even then, he still called in from Camp David. Trump is a whiny little bitch. Try again.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@currymunch6097 Really? John Lott? Fuck that guy.
John Lott is documented as having misrepresented data on issues like gun crimes: http://crab.rutgers.edu/~goertzel/mythsofmurder.htm
In 2018, Florida State Rep. Matt Caldwell said in an interview that a law enforcement officer is more likely to commit a crime than someone with a concealed weapons permit. He never explained what his source was, but it was likely John Lott. You see, in 2015, Lott compared the rate of crimes committed by police nationwide to permit revocations in Texas, Florida and Michigan. The numbers on police crime came from a national search of news reports by a team at Bowling Green State University.
Lott took the national data, compared it to the fraction of permit holders in Texas who had their permits revoked, then worked the data several ways and found a substantial gap. He said, "The rate for police was between 7 to 10 times higher than for permit holders." There were just a few issues with his math. Lott's data on crimes by police came from research by Philip Stinson, a criminal justice professor at Bowling Green State University. Stinson was reporting the number of cases, not the number of individual officers involved in crimes.
Also, Lott's use of permit revocations to measure crimes by permit holders is questionable. The data undercounts the actual number of infractions. The process is: an infraction occurs, then it's reported to the authorities, who must find it as a crime or infraction that would warrant revocation before said revocation occurs.
Lott did the same thing with illegal immigration. There's a category in the Arizona prisoner data set labeled “non-US citizen, deportable.”
Lott based his study on the data in this category and assumed that it included only undocumented immigrants. The category actually included a mix of undocumented immigrants and migrants legally present in the United States who became deportable by committing serious offenses while in the country.
It includes people who have green cards, temporary work permits, a tourist visa, and it also includes illegal immigrants. It's just not clear how many there are of each, yet Lott wrote in his paper numerous times that the advantage of his study is that he can identify illegal immigrants. He can't. There is a chance he got the data from a study on Arizona's prison population that he was hired to update. In the study, Lott and a co-author don't reach any conclusions about undocumented immigrants and crime, but they found “non-US citizens” accounted for 28.8% of drug sales and trafficking offenses and 2.2% of drug possession offenses. However, these numbers do not distinguish between legal and undocumented immigrants.
So basically, your supporting evidence consists of data that doesn't distinguish between legal and illegal immigrants, putting the accuracy of your argument into question. Do illegal immigrants commit drug crimes? Yes. But is it as bad as you're claiming? No.
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@ootmaster1 You want proof the wall won't work? Fine. Remember the European migrant crisis?
Europe had five border walls in 2014, built following the 1985 Schengen agreement amid concerns about immigration at the bloc’s external borders. By 2017, it had 15 barriers and a heavily patrolled maritime border. In particular, countries along the Balkan route built and extended border barriers. Tens of thousands of migrants still cross the Balkans to reach the EU each year, just in more dangerous conditions.
Before the walls, migrants traveled in groups, with or without the help of smugglers.
Now, paying a smuggler is the only way to avoid border guards and pass barriers. For several thousand dollars, smugglers bribe EU border agents, hide migrants in trucks, or just walk them across EU borders under cover of darkness.
Not enough proof?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@ootmaster1 1. In a congressional hearing on Tuesday, Acting Secretary of Homeland Security Kevin McAleenan said Customs and Border Protection is seeing “enormous numbers of fraudulent cases”—4,800 so far this fiscal year. That number is well under 1 percent of the more than 600,000 people encountered by immigration officials at the US border this year—and even that figure may overstate the issue. And last month, the Trump administration said it would conduct DNA tests on up to 100,000 migrants asking for asylum who CBP officers suspected were falsely claiming to be a family. McAleenan testified that during a three-day pilot program, Border Patrol tested 109 people suspected of lying about the children traveling with them. According to the test results, 17 those people were not the biological parents of the children accompanying them. That's less than 1% of fraudulent cases and 15% of people lying about the children traveling with them. And you accuse me of emotional manipulation?
2. No, I don't expect the U.S. to care for the third world. But again, even if we don't take all of them (which I'm not advocating), there are more options than "either do this or you hate America." Those just happen to be the two most prominent options.
1
-
1
-
1
-
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
-
@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
-
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
-
@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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
@AO968 1. You're missing my point. Why do conservatives think it's fine for the Trump team to conduct opposition research while demanding Hillary be locked up for conducting opposition research?
2. It's true that Trump didn't lie to Congress directly. Buuuuuuut that's only because he refuses to testify before Congress. You might say it's because he doesn't want to say anything that might be misconstrued as incriminating, but that's the thing, though. If Trump has a clean record, why would he not want to take every possible opportunity to prove that instead of just antagonizing the Democrats, the press, and the special counsel? "Oh, but it's not his responsibility to prove his innocence," you might say. Maybe not, but as the son of an attorney, I can tell you that when someone is falsely accused, the first thing their lawyer will tell them is to KEEP THEIR FUCKING MOUTH SHUT.
3. Oh, I'm not just talking about his misquotes. Remember the Pittsburgh synagogue shooting last October? The victims' families asked Trump not to visit, but his reasoning for going anyway was that the New York Stock Exchange was open the day after 9/11. The NYSE was closed until the 17th. See, it's not just that he gets misquoted. That happens with every president. The issue is that when he does lie, and we have the full context, he's lying about things that are easily disproved after just a few seconds of research.
4. Attempted murder is still a jail-able offense. I know you have to prove intent, but the report said Trump has, in multiple instances, demonstrated intent to obstruct justice. The only reason Mueller didn't have enough evidence for a definitive conclusion was that, whether by choice or not, Trump's aides repeatedly failed to carry out his orders.
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
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@nonplayercharacter6478 1. I think it's good news that the economy is doing well, but since not every factor that contributes to a good economy can be traced to the president, I caution against Trump taking credit for something he didn't do.
2. No, I don't blame Trump for what his supporters call him. But if that's the kind of mindset his supporters have, what conclusion am I meant to draw about him?
3. I'm going to answer that question with a question. If political figures can get jail time using unsecured devices, can she get a separate cell from Donald Trump? I ask because Trump has gone as long as five months without having his unsecured iPhone checked by security experts, whereas Obama had his phones checked monthly. I'm not saying Hillary shouldn't be held accountable, but we can't just pick and choose who we demand to be held accountable or else you're no less guilty of selective outrage than Democrats.
4. Obama knew about election interference, yes, but to say he did nothing about it is a lie. His administration made repeated attempts to get Russia to stop, and also to inform the public about what the Russians were doing. Obama said he himself told Russian President Vladimir Putin in September 2016 "to cut it out," vowing "serious consequences" if he did not. The administration sought support from bipartisan congressional leaders to send a letter to state governors to urge shoring up of their defenses of election infrastructure. But they were rebuffed by Republican leaders, who viewed the request as partisan. The Obama administration also issued a set of sanctions to punish Russia for its interference in the 2016 election and booted 35 Russian diplomats the US accused of being intelligence officers. Meanwhile, what has Trump done? Tell me or you're more useless than Ivanka.
5. That "global cooling" thing was already discredited, and you have the gall to say I'm gullible?
6. Never tell a Jew he doesn't know what a Nazi is.
7. Go fuck yourself.
1
-
@nonplayercharacter6478 1. I've seen people unironically call Trump "God Emperor," and you tell me I hold him to high standards?
2. My standards for Democrats is that if you can prove one of them did something wrong, I will be convinced not to support that one Democrat. You can claim you feel the same way, but I'm preemptively calling bullshit because I've spoken to enough people in these comments sections to know that all the evidence in the world won't make you pull your head out of Trump's ass.
3. You want proof that Trump is dumb? You must've heard him say that windmills cause cancer, that you need an ID to buy groceries, or that climate change isn't real because it gets cold in the winter. You can claim he was joking when he said China respects his very large "a-brain," but that wasn't a joke. Jokes have punchlines. No, he really thinks he's a stable genius. People don't go around bragging about how smart they are unless they're extremely insecure and/or really dumb.
4. Whatever talent he had in real estate clearly didn't translate into his presidency. Even then, for every success he had, there was either a business that didn't take off (like Trump Airlines, appropriately enough) or a lawsuit (over 3,000, to be precise). I'm not saying he was dumb for getting in trouble, I'm saying a smart businessman would know how not to get caught in trouble.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@sarahhaugh7922 Trump was in a lawsuit in the mid-2000s during which it was found he was also guilty of deleting emails. Jared Kushner, Steve Bannon, Reince Priebus, Gary Cohn, Stephen Miller, and Ivanka all sent classified information through private email servers just like you want Hillary hanged for. If it seems like Democrats are grasping at straws, it's because you either ignore or make excuses for every dishonest, hypocritical, and even outright criminal thing Trump and his team do, meaning you're as guilty of selective outrage as the Democrats. And you think you're being noble defending Trump with a lazy, bullshit cop out of an excuse? He wasn't telling a joke; jokes are supposed to be funny. Go fuck yourself.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@joelellis7035
You wouldn't have your mind changed even if I did play by your rules. I couldn't find any explanation as to why the FEC didn't fine or indict Trump, and that just happened to be the closest thing I could find, so I used it to make a point about the relevant incident. But even when I am, and I point out that solicitation means asking someone to commit an illegal act (which Trump did by asking the Russians to hack Hillary's emails), and that Michael Rogers said Trump lied about being wiretapped by Obama (which Trump himself said he had no evidence for beyond "a little bit of a hunch”), what do you do? You move the goalposts. "Oh no, he didn't solicit help from the Russians, even though members of his campaign staff were decidedly receptive to receiving aid from Russia. You can't solicit help from someone who you don't know is listening [which is like saying you can't, you can't solicit nations, you have to prove his intent was to solicit aid, and you can only solicit after you've washed your hands three times." I would argue Trump had good reason to believe Russia was listening. The previous month, Don Jr., Jared Kushner, and Paul Manafort, had a meeting at Trump Tower with Russians who they believed were offering damaging information about Clinton. Prior to that meeting, Don Jr. had received an email stating that the meeting was “part of Russia and its government’s support for Mr. Trump.”
And don't tell me Trump didn't know about the meeting. He totally did.
https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/400437-trump-defends-trump-tower-meeting-amid-reports-hes-concerned-about
Also, solicitation is an inchoate crime, meaning it's an act taken toward committing a crime or an act that constitutes indirect participation in a crime. So if it was illegal for the Russians to hack Hillary's emails, then Trump would be aiding and abetting.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@dmcook333 Yet to be presented with a legitimate lie? We could be here all day if I showed you every lie Trump ever told, so let's go in reverse order from April to the beginning of this year.
- "If you have a windmill anywhere near your house, congratulations, your house just went down 75 percent in value. And they say the noise causes cancer."
(Neither the White House nor any scientific study supports that claim)
- "My father is German, right? Was German, and born in a very wonderful place in Germany."
(Fred Trump was born in New York)
- "Instead of doing infrastructure, instead of doing health care, instead of doing so many things that they should be doing, they want to play games. President Obama, from what they tell me, was under a similar kind of a thing — didn’t give one letter. They didn’t do anything. They didn’t give one letter of the request. Many requests were made; they didn’t give a letter."
(For the most part, the Obama administration did turn over documents demanded by lawmakers.
The Solyndra investigation looked at 300,000 documents, the IRS investigation looked at 1.3 million, the Benghazi probes looked at hundreds of thousands, and Fast & Furious looked at more than 10,000)
- "Former Senator Harry Reid (he got thrown out) is working hard to put a good spin on his failed career." (Harry Reid left on his own accord)
- "The reason Russia was in Afghanistan was because terrorists were going into Russia. They were right to be there." (There have never been any terrorist attacks from Afghanistan in Russia. The primary motivation behind the Soviet invasion was to balance against a perceived growing U.S. interest in Afghanistan in the late 1970s)
Are you sure you were never presented with a legitimate lie or do you stubbornly refuse to look?
And don't give me that "Trump is only joking" bullshit. It's a lazy cop out compounded by the fact that no instance of Trump excusing himself with "I was only joking" was ever actually funny and you know it. As for Rogers' testimony, I was referring to his testimony at the House Intelligence Committee hearing in March 2017.
1
-
@dmcook333 1. If you think he's such a patriot, then maybe you should address what he's saying.
2. Federal campaign finance law prohibits any person from soliciting campaign contributions, defined as anything of value to be given to influence an election, from a foreign national, including a foreign government.
So when Trump said on July 27, 2016 that Russia should hack Hillary's emails, for which they would "probably be rewarded mightily by our press," that meant he was calling on a foreign adversary to locate and release something that was of great value to him and his campaign. The counter-intelligence investigation into Russian election interference began on July 31. Additionally, the use of informants is standard practice in any FBI investigation.
3. I've found a partial transcript, but a full transcript is proving hard to find.
http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1703/20/cnr.04.html
I did find this, though.
Rogers was asked about the claim that GCHQ monitored Trump on behalf of the Obama administration, and if he had ordered such surveillance.
‘No, sir, nor would I, that would be expressly against the construct of the Five Eyes agreement that has been in effect for decades."
Such surveillance would be illegal, he said, and the allegations from Trump “frustrate a key ally.”
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
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
MEGA 2020 I didn't realize it was a possibility to guess someone's age based on what they type. Well, now that I know that, Trump once told his biographer, "When I look at myself in the first grade and I look at myself now, I’m basically the same. The temperament is not that different." Shocking! I would never have guessed that about someone who typed "covfefe," countrty," "hamberders," "honered," "Phoneix," "payed," "judgement," "hearby," "Tennesee," "insticts," "dummer," "rediculous," "tapp," "smocking," and "shoker."
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Joekidd1961 His campaign adviser, his campaign chairman, and his personal fixer were either indicted or arrested. His university was sued for fraud and his foundation was shut down for embezzlement. If he's such a good fighter, we'd have a trade deal with China and North Korean disarmament by now. And he's so insecure that every single celebrity who has ever said anything even slightly negative towards Trump - Stephen King, Lebron James, Spike Lee, Meryl Streep - makes him decide completely unprompted that it's totally worth wasting his time on Twitter to prove their opinion of him right. Heck, he spelled it out clear as day when he declined to show up at the White House Correspondents Dinner because it was "too negative." The only other president who didn't show up was Reagan, and that was because he survived an assassination attempt, but even then he still called in from Camp David. But sure, I'm the idiot for thinking he hates when people don't kiss his ass like you do.
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@algorhythm4593 "If you'd stop acting like a child and just be honest"
Follow your own advice for a change.
"You CANNOT bear the thought that I might be right about ANYTHING...nor would you even give me that. THAT'S why you won't answer!"
No, I don't answer because you're moving the goalposts and asking a question that has no relevance to the original discussion.
"Children do that and, in adults, is the mark of immaturity...evidence to the fact that you're young."
I keep asking you to provide the tons of substantive material you claim to have. You have failed to do so. So when you act like you're better than me, you're a liar.
"That is also why I'm the only adult in the room."
It isn't and you're not, liar.
"Both of our characters have been on display here and, Kiddo, I'm afraid it's just not looking too good for you but since EVERYTHING is 'baseless' according to you"
Everything isn't baseless to me. Baseless is what you're doing by refusing to provide any evidence for anything you claim. You claim I'm young based on evidence you don't have. You claim you're an intelligent adult based on evidence you don't have. You claim I don't believe in God based on an answer I didn't give to a question that isn't relevant. It's not that I think everything I say is baseless. It's that everything you say just happens to be baseless.
"My questions and assertions are pertinent to the discussion, that's why you won't speak to them. You lack credibility, its apparent."
You forgot an apostrophe, idiot. That's not why I don't answer your question. And you're only fooling yourself when you pretend you had any credibility in the first place.
"Lifehack: You had better hope and pray you NEVER end up in a court of law...it'll certainly end badly for you."
Are you threatening me? That's not very Christlike.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@algorhythm4593 "ANYONE can quote Scripture, dum-dum, but as for the Spirit? I am a believer, but I am no saint. I still have my own, ignorant, capricious, corrupt, profane personality...for which I take full ownership of and blame for."
You didn't need to tell me that. You already proved that by calling me a dum-dum while continuing to fail to show the tons of substantive material you claimed to have.
"On that note, I'm merely just a beggar trying to show other beggars where the Bread is."
No, you're not. If you did, you wouldn't be a Styx subscriber.
"That has everything to do with my assertions, mindset, thought-processes, etc. (you fill in the blank)."
I don't need to. Your mind is already a blank.
"You're not the same; it is not within the universe of your consideration that you could be wrong."
That is definitely a lie. I accept that I've been proven wrong in the past. You just failed to do so.
"What your faith has to do with this (not that you'll answer) is also everything to your position."
No, it isn't. Regardless of what I believe, do you honestly think no one can be honest without religion? You don't get sympathy by hiding behind religion if you can't prove yourself without it.
"With an honest discourse from you, I would demonstrate how it applies and be able to extrapolate further about your perceptions, positions, beliefs, notions, etc."
Bullshit. You don't want honest discourse. You never showed the slightest inkling of capacity for it.
"You're afraid of what it might reveal"
You're making baseless assumptions again. I'm not afraid of what you're going to do because I don't take you seriously enough for that to be an issue.
"This is a safe space, here, with me...I assure you. I'm just trying to get you to understand."
Bullshit. No, it isn't. You don't care how I feel. Exhibit 196:
"There is a Spirit that lives in you...and it's not a good one."
Stop lying.
"I don't care about winning."
Yes, you do, liar.
"I just want us to come to an understanding...to THE understanding (if such a thing even exists) maybe even agreement."
No, you don't, liar.
"While I lay bare my foibles and acknowledge them as such, I nevertheless endeavor toward honesty---despite of how flawed I am."
Bullshit. You don't want honesty. Never did, never will.
"Not saying you're evil"
Yes, you are, liar.
"No matter how you slice it, Trump was the lesser of the two evils."
No, he was not. Again, I don't pretend Hillary was the best person for the job, but you pretend every single thing Trump does wouldn't be a career killer for anyone else.
"I'm pretty sure I'm older than you, have been around some, and have learned some things in life."
You have no evidence of my age.
"I've developed a bad habit of seeing things as they are, NOT as I want them to be."
No, you haven't, liar.
"I still prefer the cold, hard, plain, cruel truth."
No, you don't, liar. You never use it.
"You should try it sometime...it's liberating."
You first, liar.
"I'm truly sorry for the name-calling."
No, you're not, liar.
"your recalcitrance is incredibly frustrating."
Your Dunning-Kruger levels are incredibly frustrating. Get your head out of your ass and get treated for your messiah complex.
"As far as Scripture is concerned, how bout this:
'For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.' Eph. 6:12.
The Clinton Apparatus is P-R-E-C-I-C-E-L-Y what this verse is referring to. Change my mind, Friend, if thou canst."
It's "precisely," you idiot.
1
-
@algorhythm4593 You're adorable.
I'm not refusing to answer the question because I'm a coward. I'm refusing because you have failed to explain its relevance. What would it matter whether I believed in God?
"only proves you're not really interested in an answer but rather to just argue"
You mean like what you've been doing this whole time.
"I already know you don't believe in God, it's pretty apparent"
You have no evidence to prove that, and again, you have failed to explain how that's relevant.
"[you] will NEVER understand what that has to do with anything"
That's a lazy cop-out if ever there was one.
"What follows is a bunch of if-then statements, among other techniques and points, methodically and sytematically exposing your belief system, character, lies, and incorrect assertions."
First of all, it's "systematically," you idiot. Secondly, again, all of this could be avoided. You could just explain what relevance the question has without being an asshole about it.
"1) It's obvious you don't like Styx, his content, or the commentors; but that doesn't make him a liar"
No, him being a liar makes him a liar. He once claimed that the Pittsburgh synagogue shooter was a communist without any evidence to prove it.
"AND you failed to prove that and, additionally, mischaracterize his position as well as his commentors (check the thread and quote yourself---just because you make an assertion does not mean YOU'RE correct. It's only YOUR opinion, nothing more).
"
I literally just explained how you're wrong. It's not a matter of my opinion when I have proof he's a liar. Also, it's "commenter," you idiot.
"2) "it's obvious you don't like Trump; but, not only that, you DO suffer from TDS."
Your medical degree from Trump University was a waste of money. Get a real one, stop defending a con man, and shut up about conditions that don't exist.
"Again, look back at the thread and YOU brought his name up, not me. I merely suggested you have TDS"
If you're the one who brought up TDS, then you're the one who brought up his name, you idiot."
"and THAT IS correct and evidenced by the your vulgarity"
Every single person here who has ever pointed out my use of vulgarity puts me in a lose-lose situation where they won't listen to me no matter what words I use. I don't expect them to believe me, but I would like some consistency. What, calling someone retarded is okay but calling someone an asshole isn't?
"your baseless assertions about Styx and his commentors being Trump supporters"
Again, "commenter." And it's not a baseless assumption that Styx is a Trump supporter, idiot.
"The drivel about HRC winning the popular vote"
Except she did, by 2.8 million more votes. Either the popular vote doesn't matter or Trump was duly elected. I've heard Trump defenders claim both - pick one.
"your demonization of Trump's character (admittedly, the man is flawed) but say nothing of HRC's character?!"
Whataboutism gets you nothing. I don't pretend to be a fan of Hillary, but I will not pretend Trump isn't equally corrupt.
"C'mon man, I know you're intellectually dishonest"
There you go with more of your trademark baseless assumptions.
"When they walk past the TV and HRC is on the screen, they turn to their parents and ask using their rudimentary language skills, 'Who dat 'cary laylee??'"
What you're describing has never happened.
"I'm sure the notion of '...wisdom from the mouths of babes' is COMPLETELY lost on you. Yes, I'm stating it: little children have more sense than you.
"
There you go with your trademark projections. I'm still waiting for those tons of substantive material you fail to provide.
"3) Your trite maneuvering (eg. the misinformation, the cognitive dissonance, the ad hominim attacks, NOT answering simple questions, diverting, deflecting, etc.)"
You've done everything you just listed. Also, it's "ad hominem," you idiot.
"It's so predictable, thoughtless, and sophomoric."
Projecting again.
"You'll only persuade mush-heads like yourself with that methodology and rhetoric."
Meanwhile, you failed to persuade me of anything other than that you're an idiot.
"But the rest of us simply know intuitively the blaring, self-evident facts morons like you stumble over."
You mean like what you've been doing? I'm still waiting for those tons of substantive material you fail to provide.
"Again, you're not interested in facts or much less, what's right.
"
I call bullshit. You've never been interested in facts. Otherwise, you'd show those tons of substantive material you fail to provide.
"This much is true, though: you REFUSED to do the exercise!"
You REFUSED to explain the relevance of your question and to provide the tons of substantive material you assured me you have.
"And as such, do not really care for or about the answer. You may even learn something or even (God forbid) discover you may be wrong. I know that's a terrifying concept for you, dum-dum."
Projecting yet again.
"My assertion: you're a coward who cares more about your image than the truth."
You mean like what you are? If you cared about the truth, you would be showing it instead of being an incompetent playground bully.
"I earnestly tried to answer/respond thoughtfully to you"
Bullshit. No, you didn't.
"it requires you to answer a simple question. You wouldn't even meet me half way."
Because you refused to explain why it's relevant.
"You have problems and you always will unless you get this nailed down."
It's not my fault you're an incompetent Dunning-Kruger sufferer who can't cite a single fact.
"You're a lazy student, lacking in curiosity and honesty. You are beyond reach and your future is bleak."
Projecting again.
"Not attacking you"
Yes, you are.
"just stating facts as I had done from my very first response to you."
Bullshit. You never stated facts. You don't have any. Never did and never will. I'm still waiting for those tons of substantive material you clearly don't have.
"Regardless, I do hope you have a Merry Christmas...you could use the cheer, for the Spirit is not in you. Tragic.😧😕"
You sure as hell don't have the Spirit.
"If anyone says, 'I love God,' and hates his brother, he is a liar; for he who does not love his brother whom he has seen cannot love God whom he has not seen.
"
- 1 John 4:20
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@algorhythm4593 1. You have tons of material, eh? I call bullshit. You don't. Otherwise, you wouldn't resort to childish projection.
2. "I'm all for a healthy debate but have no stomach for arguing, especially with a fool like you. TDS is REAL."
These two sentences cancel each other out. If you wanted healthy debate, you wouldn't be a Styx subscriber who uses TDS to dismiss all criticisms of Trump no matter how valid they may be.
3. You're not the only adult in the room. You're not an adult, period. Otherwise, again, you would be using those tons of substantive material you mentioned instead of being a playground bully.
4. "Truth is offensive to 'you people'."
There you go projecting again. You claim to have truth but will never show it.
5. "Again, you don't believe in God, do you?"
Again, how would my religion be relevant?
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@frankmanning3815 Get your eyes checked and read page 5, you idiot.
"As a director of the Foundation, Mr. Trump owed fiduciary duties to the Foundation, pursuant to N-PCL § 717; he was a trustee of the Foundation’s charitable assets and was thereby responsible for the proper administration of these assets, pursuant to EPTL § 8-1.4. A review of the record, including the factual admissions in the Final Stipulation, establishes that Mr. Trump breached his fiduciary duty to the Foundation and that waste occurred to the Foundation. Mr. Trump’s fiduciary duty breaches included allowing his campaign to orchestrate the Fundraiser, allowing his campaign, instead of the Foundation, to direct distribution of the Funds, and using the Fundraiser and distribution of the Funds to further Mr. Trump’s political campaign."
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Dems Love Conspiracies Dunning-Kruger much?
"Didnt I already make you run to your safe space son?
"
No, you didn't. I don't even remember who the fuck you are and you talk the same as every other Styx subscriber, so I have no reason to know who you are or take you seriously?
"Yeah Trump hired him.
And that proves what about your impeachment? Oh thats right it proves nothing, But it does prove once again, you morons are ready to flip flop and agree with every person you have ever hated as soon as they become anti trump."
So . . . it does prove something?
Wow, you suck at this.
But I digress.
If Trump is truly innocent, he should have no issue with the people who worked for him testifying. After all, Trump himself said he would only hire "the best people," so by that description, Bolton should be allowed to testify and set an example for Trump and his administration. But Trump not only doesn't let him testify, he also lied about how the Democrats never asked Bolton. And what does that prove, you ask? That Trump is an untrustworthy, lying asshole committing the very transgression for which he's getting impeached.
You're a liar and an idiot.
Fuck you.
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@InquisitorMatthewAshcraft 1. Your medical degree from Trump University was a scam. Get a real one, read the DSM-V, and shut up about conditions that don't exist.
2. This was not an acquittal. Imagine, for a moment, that Hillary was the president and she got impeached. Imagine that her party held a Senate majority, refused to allow witnesses and voted not guilty on all charges. Would you call that a fair trial? I remind you that all this started because of what the Bidens did in Ukraine. The Republicans, therefore, could've easily used the Democrats' insistence on Senate witnesses as a means to question Hunter Biden. All they'd have to do is prove that Trump was right to investigate him and his father. But they couldn't even do that right. Seriously, every single impeachment trial prior to this has had witnesses. Even if it changes nothing about the outcome and only provides the appearance of a fair trial, wouldn't it be an even bigger win for the Republicans if they obliged the Democrats' requests and still won the trial? Come on, this should've been a no-brainer. As is, it's a cover-up.
3. It's not that Democrats are complaining that Trump golfs. It's that Trump criticized Obama for playing golf and then spent even more time playing golf than him.
https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/768119463421943808
https://presidentialgolftracker.com/trump-vs-obama-golf-games/
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Templar Knight "You've been blasted across multiple threads..." Well yeah, cuz everyone here refuses to accept anything that isn't from Breitbart, Project Veritas, Ann Coulter, or from equally reputable sources like Clint Eastwood's chair.
"Why are you willing to overlook the numerous issues with this probe?" I have no idea what issues you're referring to. The only people I've seen talk about them are here, and when they do they never go into specifics.
"You have no right to call people out for smugness." Well, what the hell am I supposed to do? When Democrats try to be diplomatic, they're called weak.
"Beto O'Rourke and Broward County" Let's start with O'Rourke. The O'Rourke campaign acknowledged that some of their staff had donated to a charity serving migrants in El Paso, Texas. However, there's no evidence that the staff gave any campaign-purchased supplies directly to migrants. As for Broward County, you're talking about Brenda Snipes, right? I looked at her record and . . . yeah, there's some questionable stuff in there. But even with that in mind, if she has to resign, then I insist that Brian Kemp should be held to a similar standard in the aforementioned interest of fairness.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@godemperortrump921 Wow, there are so many things wrong with this, I'm convinced Rush Limbaugh wrote it.
1. I repeat: do you want to call me an idiot "with an average IQ of a [sic] Average Third worlder" or do you want me to think you're right? Let me get this out of the way, and I don't want it to seem like I'm bragging. But intelligence comes in many different forms. There's interpersonal intelligence, linguistic intelligence, emotional intelligence - all of which you lack. If I were an idiot, ¿seguiría hablando el español con soltura? After all, we live in a country with an increasing Hispanic population; surely, you must have some intelligence to understand that.
2. Again, I have not "failed" to prove any of my "MSM implanted fantasies" because "MSM" is a term you use to refer to anyone who isn't Fox (even though they are clearly a cable news channel no better than CNN or NBC in any regard). But sure, Breitbart and Veritas are the epitome of credibility and journalistic integrity. Remember that time when Breitbart and James O'Keefe were caught tampering with the phones in a Senator's office? Or when Breitbart tried to make USDA Georgia Director of Rural Development Shirley Sherrod out to be a racist using a selectively edited video? Did you hear that when Milo Yiannopoulos was a staff writer, he directly solicited ideas from a contributor to The Daily Stormer (a neo-Nazi and white supremacist website), an editor for American Renaissance (an online white nationalist magazine), and Vox Day (an alt-right, neo-fascist, and white supremacist blogger)? No, you didn't. But the fact that you think they're "real journalism" and everyone else isn't says more about you than me.
3. You don't know for a fact that you're right. Let's say, hypothetically, that Mueller charges Trump with something really big early next year. You still wouldn't care because you'd let Trump wipe his ass with your face if you thought it would "own the libs."
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Trumpis God Tap, hereby, honored, unprecedented, wait, ridiculous, policies, union, waste, was, deal, judgment, develop, professional, politicians, paid, lightweight, choker - these are all words your president* can't spell correctly. But sure, I'm the dumb one
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
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
@YuYuYuna_ (groan)
You know, this is the second time today that I had to explain someone here what the issue is with Trump not releasing his tax returns. It's a lose-lose situation with you, isn't it? Nothing I say sticks and when I repeat myself in the hopes that something will, I get called an NPC. But here we go again.
I'm calling bullshit on Trump because of his two main excuses for not releasing them.
One, he's not releasing them because he's under audit. There is literally no law preventing anyone from releasing their tax returns while under audit. Even Richard Nixon released his tax returns under audit, so don't tell me Trump is innocent when he lost the moral high ground to Richard Fucking Nixon.
But more importantly, he's not releasing them because he's not legally required to. I already acknowledge that there is no law mandating that citizens release their financial records or taxes. If Trump didn't want to release them because he felt he didn't have to, that would be fine. It would only be a problem if he wasn't a total fucking hypocrite about it. I made the comparison to Obama because A) Trump expected him to release his college papers while he was making his personal fixer threaten his own schools not to release his grades, and B) Trump had mocked Obama on Twitter multiple times for hiding records. Here's one from July 17, 2012: "Why would @BarackObama be spending millions of dollars to hide his records if there was nothing to hide?" Here's another one from that same day: "For the sake of transparency, @BarackObama should release all his college applications and transcripts--both from Occidental and Columbia." Here's one from October 30 of that year: "Why does Obama believe he shouldn't comply with record releases that his predecessors did of their own volition? Hiding something?"
Trump should just come right out and say "I'm never releasing my tax returns because I just don't want to." At least that would be more honest than saying he's under audit (which doesn't prevent anyone from releasing their tax returns) or insisting he's not legally required to (which wouldn't be a problem if he wasn't a fucking hypocrite).
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@tylerskiss Someone clearly doesn't know what Executive Privilege is.
If the Democrats had pursued the judiciary exactly the way you claim they should have, you would have found some reason to claim they still weren't doing it right. And while I can't say with certainty why they don't do exactly what you say they should, I would have to guess it's because Trump has consistently ignored court orders and no indication has been given that such behavior would change. The Democrats issued multiple subpoenas, and Trump has never cooperated with a single one of them.
Why wouldn't Trump cooperate?
The FBI's investigation into the Trump campaign was found to not have been politically motivated, but let's ignore that fact and assume any investigation into Trump is politically motivated, including this one.
If Trump is even remotely competent at strategy, he would cooperate with the impeachment. Think about it. He openly bragged about the material he's withholding from Congress. Why withhold anything? He should give everything he has to Congress, and if he's truly innocent, they won't find anything criminal. The Constitution doesn't provide a definition of "high crimes and misdemeanors," so if they can't find anything that validly qualifies, he can claim he's innocent AND transparent and that the Democrats are paranoid liars. Boom! Re-election.
I just gave Trump his best idea and I'm a Democrat.
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Remember that time Trump said not to ask Mike Pence's views on gay people because "he wants to hang them"? Sure, that doesn't necessarily mean Trump himself is homophobic, but you'd think someone who said he'd fight for gay rights during the campaign would want everyone else in his administration to be on the same page. And yet...
In March 2017, Trump's administration rolled back key components of workplace protections for LGBT people and made it so federal contractors weren't required to prove they were complying with those protections. So it would be more difficult to tell if any discriminatory practices took place.
Oh, and don't forget Trump's transgender policies.
Some of Trump's appointees - such as Mark Green, Jeff Mateer, Allison Rushing, and Matthew Kacsmaryk - have been vehemently against transgender women.
In February 2017, within two days of Jeff Sessions becoming Attorney General, the Department of Justice withdrew a motion "seeking to allow transgender students in public schools to use the restroom with which they identify."
On July 26, 2017, the same day that
the Department of Justice argued in court that federal civil rights law did not ban employers from discriminating against employees based on sexual orientation, Trump announced on Twitter that transgender people would not be allowed to serve in the military "in any capacity." His reasoning was that American forces could not afford the "tremendous medical costs and disruption" of transgender service members, despite a RAND study of 18 countries that allow transgender individuals to serve in the military finding "little or no impact on unit cohesion, operational effectiveness, or readiness." Also, according to the Scientific American, studies have shown that the medical costs for transgender service members would be "minimal".
On August 25, 2017, Trump signed a memo prohibiting transgender individuals from joining the armed services unless the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of Homeland Security recommend otherwise.
In March 2018, Trump announced a new policy on transgender service members, namely a ban on those with a diagnosis of gender dysphoria, which would effectively be a ban on most transgender service members.
But sure, Trump is the one who should get to lecture other countries on accepting the LGBT community.
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
-
1
-
@godofrock117 Every word of what you said is absolutely wrong.
1. Multiple court cases were thrown out due to lack of merit, meaning the evidence did not hold up to scrutiny. For example, the Trump campaign had claimed that there was insufficient access by observers in numerous vote counts. But in Trump v. Philadelphia County Board of Elections, they admitted that there actually was a "nonzero number of people in the room" observing the vote count, including some affiliated with the Trump campaign. This prompted the judge - who was appointed by a Republican president, mind you - to ask "I'm sorry, then what is your problem?" Strike one for you.
2. Mail-in voting fraud is nearly impossible to commit. Otherwise, why would the US MILITARY be using it? In order to commit mail-in voting fraud, you need to know the name and personal information of a registered voter who requested a mail-in ballot, intercept the requested ballot, be really good at forging a signature, and then hope the forged ballot doesn't cause an anomaly when it's checked before being counted. And that's just to do it once. You would have to do with with thousands of people in order to affect the election results, and you will absolutely be caught before that can happen. So yeah, strike two for you.
3. Who was president when the economy crashed last year? Who released the 5,000 Taliban from prison who now control Afghanistan? Who betrayed Kurdish allies in Syria, praised the Saudi and North Korean governments despite innumerable human rights violations, and thinks the CEO of Apple is named "Tim Apple"?
That's right, it's Donald Trump.
Strike three. Go fuck yourself.
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@869475397 Avoiding getting shot at is different because that's just not dying. No one likes paying taxes, but if you like having things like paved roads and hospitals, you have to know someone needs to pay for them. But anyway, Trump didn't avoid paying taxes through legal means. In the 90s, Trump dodged taxes on forgiven debt by swapping it for partnership equity, something that was made illegal in 2004. And before you say "Well then, it was still legal at the time," even at the time, Trump's own lawyers told him it was legally dubious. He also helped set up a sham corporation to disguise millions of dollars in gifts from his parents, gifts which included his parents' real estate holdings that he undervalued by hundreds of millions of dollars on tax returns to sharply lower the bill, i.e. tax fraud (which is absolutely illegal).
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
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
@SonoftheAllfather Do you want to keep calling me names or are you incapable of taking the high ground and trying to prove how you're right? For one thing, I wanted to drop the topic of economics because if I had to keep telling you over and over again that tariffs don't work that way, you'd start calling me an NPC. But more importantly, if your dad is the one who told you that trying to get a reaction out of other guys by saying their dads like getting pegged is what a real man does, your dad gives terrible advice. I didn't tell you anything about my dad for the sake of inflating his manhood (or by extension, mine). I told you about my dad because you seem to be under the impression that there's only one correct way to be a man, and gatekeeping isn't an argument you should be making in defense of traditional masculinity or anything. Are you going to claim that, say, Bruce Lee wasn't a real man because he once competed in, and won, a cha-cha tournament? If so, maybe we should leave out of this discussion things our dads taught us.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@SonoftheAllfather I said he openly suggested that he wanted to fuck her, not said it outright. Although there are records of him pretty much spelling it out. When Ivanka was 13, Trump asked Washington Post columnist Richard Cohen “Is it wrong to be more sexually attracted to your own daughter than your wife?”
And...you know what? Fuck the stuff about economics. Since when are you the world's foremost expert on masculinity? Do you think it's so self-evident what being traditionally masculine is that you don't need to tell me what it is? I'm pretty sure there's always been an emphasis on being "tough" through physical strength and the idea that expressing emotions other than anger is a sign of weakness, but you're clearly the expert here, so what the fuck do I know? However, if you are so clearly well versed in the study of masculinity, tell me why you're so offended by the idea of other men not fitting your definition of masculinity. If you're so tough, why does it bother you what other men think about masculinity? That doesn't affect you, does it? Unless you're insecure, but that can't be true since you're obviously such an authority on what it means to be a man. Also, "feminist/beta male combo"? Why would my mom being a feminist matter to you? My dad doesn't care, and he's a marathon runner who has taken classes in krav maga and currently has a green belt in eskrima. You want to call him a beta male to his face and see how that turns out?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
If you repeat a lie enough times, it is still a lie. According to the article you yourself linked:
"[Intelligence Committee chairman Richard] Burr was careful to note that more facts may yet be uncovered, but he also made clear that the investigation was nearing an end. 'We know we're getting to the bottom of the barrel because there're not new questions that we're searching for answers to,' Burr said. Democratic Senate investigators who spoke to NBC News on condition of anonymity did not dispute Burr's characterizations, but said they lacked context. 'We were never going find a contract signed in blood saying, Hey Vlad, we're going to collude,' one Democratic aide said. The series of contacts between Trump's associates, his campaign officials, his children and various Russians suggest a campaign willing to accept help from a foreign adversary, the Democrats say. By many counts, Trump and his associates had more than 100 contacts with Russians before the January 2017 presidential inauguration. 'Donald Trump Jr. made clear in his messages that he was willing to accept help from the Russians,' one Democratic Senate investigator said. 'Trump publicly urged the Russians to find Clinton's missing emails.' . . . Predictably, Burr's comments led Trump to tweet that he had been fully vindicated, which is not the case."
Remember when Rudy Giuliani said "I never said there was no collusion"? He tried to cover his tracks by saying that members of the administration might have colluded (even if Trump didn't personally direct them to collude himself) and said as far as Trump knows, there was no collusion. If Trump made Jordan Belfort his economic adviser, for example, even he didn't have any personal involvement in Belfort's crimes, he either didn't know Belfort committed them (in which case, Trump is terrible at conducting background checks) or he knew and hired him anyway. It's the same thing here. Several members of Trump's inner circle lied about having Russian contacts. It might be true that Trump didn't collude, but how many members of Trump's inner circle have to lie about having Russian contacts before you start to question whether Trump is, as he claims, hiring the best people?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@aroenche428 Did Zack Snyder write this? Because damn, does this make zero sense?
1. You're arguing that it's illegal for a special investigator to find evidence? What do you think "investigate" means?
2. Do you think not being charged with something is the same thing as being innocent? Trump once tweeted "no obstruction (except for I fight back)," which is literally what obstruction of justice is. If asking the FBI to go easy on Michael Flynn and firing James Comey and Jeff Sessions for not being loyal to him (in the latter case, admitting to doing so for that very reason) don't count as obstruction of justice, then Trump could stand in the Rose Garden and say "I'm totally guilty of obstructing justice" and you would still be kissing his ass.
3. "We'd have known about it months ago via leaks." Bullshit. Even if there were leaks, you would still be giving Trump tongue baths.
4. "Zero legs"? Your Dear Leader keeps changing his story on everything from the Trump Tower meeting to how closely he worked with Paul Manafort and you think he has more legs to stand on than the guy who says "Hey, maybe this guy with a history of getting sued for fraud isn't trustworthy"? You want to waste your time, keep watching Styx's videos. Or don't, because your "cat is out of the bag" statement proves you clearly don't pay attention to them. In the article Styx himself linked to in the description, it basically says "one guy on the committee says they haven't found much, but admits things could change, and also other members of the committee stress the importance of keeping things in context." But like a good NPC, you and everyone in this comments section let Trump tell you that he was vindicated because of what one guy said that wasn't even remotely close to what the one guy said.
5. I'd never heard of David Brock before your comment, but since you seem to hate him, I already know he'd make a way better president than Trump. Seriously, I bet you only hate him because he wasn't on your side when you wanted the "Anita Hill is a perjuring lesbian" guy to help discredit Christine Blasey Ford.
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
-
@saltynameredacted9117 Actually, yes, you do have to put in effort. You and every other Styx subscriber make that same "I don't have to put in effort" excuse, and what other conclusion am I to draw from that other than that you're all lazy morons? Heck, by admitting to putting in no effort, you're basically admitting that you have nothing. You didn't do any research, you didn't find any statistics, you did nothing to make the case for why you're right and not a lying asshole. And as always, you failed. You claim I did but you reliably fail to explain how, and I know you can't do that because you didn't put any effort in. The DSM-5 (a diagnostic tool published by the AMERICAN Psychiatric Association) doesn't classify transgenderism as a mental illness, which is something you would've known if you weren't a lazy moron. So what reason could you have to claim I failed if you are demonstrably too lazy to even try?
You're a failure and a disappointment to everyone who was ever stupid enough to believe in you, which is saying something because your mother and father are already failures for having raised a human turd.
Fuck Trump, fuck your incompetent piece of shit parents, and fuck you, you worthless Jeff Flake supporter.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@saltynameredacted9117 More likely, the injunction was because the administration had begun seeking to implement the Mattis policy instead of the original one (which was the policy against which the charges had been filed). It wasn't because Stockman had no merit to his charges whatsoever. Is a negative IQ required to be Trump's bitch? Also, minor point, you call spell out the word "shit," you wimp. Your mommy isn't reading these and she can't be even more disappointed in you than she already is. Keep projecting your failures onto me, incel. You're still Trump's stupid, gullible, worthless bitch, and that is all you will ever be good for since you're a failure at everything else.
Fuck Trump, fuck your parents for failing everyone by raising a human turd, and fuck you, you disgusting McCain supporter.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@saltynameredacted9117 Oh, so you are a fucking moron. When Trump's tweets are admissible evidence, then what he says on Twitter does matter.
https://www.usnews.com/news/national-news/articles/2017-06-12/donald-trumps-statements-on-twitter-cited-in-courts-decision-to-upholds-block-on-travel-ban
And when I quoted from THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE, no specification was made regarding age. Since you're clearly too stupid to have noticed the first time, the quote was:
“The Military Health System covers all approved medically necessary treatments and prescription medications. If a service member has a hormone deficiency for any reason (such as hypogonadism, hypothyroidism, menopause, etc.), he or she would be prescribed hormones.”
Fuck Trump, fuck your parents for being incompetent failures, and fuck you, Dunning-Kruger.
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@dwaynecoy1871 1. You seem weirdly trusting of the Washington Post all of a sudden. I thought they fell under the umbrella of "fake news." Or is that when they're not kissing Trump's ass like you do?
2. That this investigation was centered around collusion is Trump's lie to make it so he could claim to be exonerated when Mueller couldn't find evidence of the thing he wasn't looking for anyway. Collusion has no specific legal meaning in criminal law. The Mueller report itself even explained that. So if believing a dishonest narrative about collusion makes one stupid and ignorant, what does that say about you?
3. As long as we're citing the Washington Post, in April of 2016, Marc Elias, general counsel for the Clinton campaign, took over funding of the Fusion GPS Trump investigation. He used discretionary funds at his disposal and didn't inform the campaign about the research. So if Trump isn't guilty of conspiracy because his campaign staff were doing things without his knowledge, why is Hillary guilty?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/clinton-lawyer-kept-russian-dossier-project-closely-held/2017/10/27/e7935276-ba68-11e7-be94-fabb0f1e9ffb_story.html
4. In July 2016, Carter Page traveled to Russia ostensibly to deliver a speech at Moscow’s New Economic School. While in Moscow, Page met with Igor Sechin—a Vladimir Putin ally and the executive chairman of Russia’s state oil company, Rosneft—to discuss lifting U.S. sanctions in exchange for the brokerage of a 19 percent stake in the oil giant. He also met with members of Russia’s presidential administration while in Moscow, as well as with Andrey Baranov, the head of investor relations at Rosneft. Page also said in testimony that he “may have” greeted Joseph Mifsud, who told George Papadopoulos, about the Kremlin’s dossier of incriminating Hillary Clinton emails.
And according to the Justice Department, Page met with, emailed with, and “provided documents to” Victor Podobnyy, a spy who was posing as a diplomat in New York City while acting as an agent of Russia’s foreign-intelligence agency. Page gave Podobnyy information “about the energy business” from January to June of 2013, according to the DOJ’s criminal complaint, and Podobnyy appeared to acknowledge in intercepted conversations that he was using Page as a “useful idiot” for intelligence-gathering purposes. So if Carter Page was helping the FBI, I assume it happened before the FISA applications that read “the FBI believes that the Russian government’s efforts are being coordinated with Page and perhaps other individuals associated with” Trump’s campaign, and that Page “has established relationships with Russian government officials, including Russian intelligence officers."
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@TeslaKuhn8
- September 13, 2011: "How can the economy ever recover when @BarackObama keeps threatening the private sector with more taxes. This is no way to spur growth." (Tariffs, anyone?)
- November 2, 2011: "Why is @BarackObama letting the Taliban know when our troops are leaving?” (Remember last December when Trump posted a Twitter video revealing the location of a covert Navy Seal operation?)
- March 1, 2012: "The Chinese laugh at how weak and pathetic our government is in combating intellectual property theft." (Warner Bros. filed a copyright claim over Trump's use of the score from The Dark Knight Rises)
- June 6, 2012: "Why is @BarackObama spending millions to try and hide his records? He is the least transparent President--ever--and he ran on transparency." (Trump sued to block congressional subpoena of his financial records and instructed White House staff to ignore House subpoenas)
- July 17, 2012: "For the sake of transparency, @BarackObama should release all his college applications and transcripts--both from Occidental and Columbia." (Trump paid Michael Cohen to intimidate his old schools to keep his records sealed)
- July 17, 2012: "Why would @BarackObama be spending millions of dollars to hide his records if there was nothing to hide?" (See above)
- July 17, 2012: "If @BarackObama had such a wonderful academic record why wouldn't he want to show it? (See above)
- July 19, 2012: "Breitbart gets it! Vote now--Obama should release his college application records & grades" (See above)
- August 1, 2012: "The deficits under @BarackObama are the highest in America's history. Why is he bankrupting our country? (In March of this year, the U.S. posted the biggest monthly budget deficit in American history)
- September 11, 2012: "Whatever happened to Obama's 'independent investigation' into national security leaks from his administration? Where's the media?" (Please refer back to the above mentioned Navy Seal operation)
- September 26, 2012: “Obama's complaints about Republicans stopping his agenda are BS since he had full control for two years. He can never take responsibility." (Need I explain this one?)
- October 30, 2012: "Why does Obama believe he shouldn't comply with record releases that his predecessors did of their own volition? Hiding something?" (Again, Trump sued to block congressional subpoena of his financial records and paid Michael Cohen to intimidate his old schools to keep his records sealed)
- September 7, 2013: "PresObama is not busy talking to Congress about Syria..he is playing golf ...go figure" (Trump spent 3 days golfing after he declared a national emergency that he himself admitted he didn't need to declare; overall, Trump spent significantly more time as president playing golf than Obama, so much so that there's a website dedicated to tracking it - https://trumpgolfcount.com/)
- October 13, 2014: "Can you believe that,with all of the problems and difficulties facing the U.S., President Obama spent the day playing golf.Worse than Carter" (See above)
- November 5, 2014: "I'm worried about Obama using executive power to pass immigration law" (National emergency, anyone?)
I could go on, but how about instead, you go fuck yourself?
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
-
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
-
@mechanoid2k There is so much wrong here, I'm surprised you didn't get it from his tweets.
1. Justice Department policy states that a sitting president can't be indicted. However, he can still be impeached. Just so you don't try to accuse me of not understanding the Constitution, Article 2, Section 4 states that the president "shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors." Article 3, Section 3 states that "[t]reason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort." Further, Article 1, Section 2, Clause 5 states that The House of Representatives have "the sole Power of Impeachment.
" So if the Mueller report reveals in no uncertain terms that Trump and his administration gave "aid and comfort" to Russia, a country whose president just recently threatened to target the United States with nuclear missiles, then the House of Representatives would have grounds for impeachment.
2. According to Rasmussen, his approval rating is currently at 35%. Knowing that, are you so sure he will get re-elected? In the same way you were likely so sure that Roy Moore would get elected? In the same way you were likely so sure that there would be no Blue Wave? In the same way you were so sure Trump wouldn't cave on the border wall? Suppose he doesn't get re-elected. When that happens, I know how you'll react. You'll come up with excuses with no evidence to support them and you'll generally react like a toddler who was told to share his toys.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@davidlewis6728
"my trap did exactly what it was meant to do, predict your actions and make fun of them before you even had the chance to do them"
By your own words, the trap has to actually prove something. Your trap proved nothing.
"it is one thing to say 'ha, you activated my trap card' and an entirely different thing to say 'if you do this, you will activate my trap card, but since i know you will inevitably have to do this, i am going to inform you about it just to mock you when you inevitably fall for it'"
That's exactly what I did when I told you not to respond, but you're still doing it, so again, all you're doing is proving me right.
"if i said tds existed and leaved it at that"
It's "left," not "leaved." You can't even insult me right.
"by telling you to watch your step it becomes your responsibility to not be a dumbass, and your failure to avoid the trap would be seen as an incapability on your part, not just some stupid trick i used to feel good about myself"
Again, exactly what I did. And you keep proving me right.
"and i never claimed to be good at traps, i only pointed out how bad you were at them, and you proved my point further by not understanding what kind of trap this was"
See, this is why it's bullshit when you think all I do is project. This is textbook projection. You didn't trap me, you didn't prove a point, and you never presented a single fact that could make you seem even remotely knowledgeable. You're a loser and a failure.
"the secrecy of the trap is a way to increase the likelihood of it's success, but if it can be done without it, that is what the internet refers to as a flex on your competence, which is what i have done."
No, you have not. Again, by your own rules, a trap should prove something. And you didn't.
"the thing on trump embezzling the military is an interesting point, i haven't found anything on it yet, would you kindly provide a link to more detail?"
Before I do...
"you really don't understand how this works, do you? if i responded by saying trump embezzling the military is fine because trump has good intentions, or because it is trump and not someone else then you would have a point."
No, with this, you'd likely respond by saying "What about when this Democrat did such and such?" I've spoken to Styx subscribers enough to have pattern recognition.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-trump-foundation/trump-must-pay-2-million-for-misusing-namesake-charity-new-york-judge-idUSKBN1XH2NE
"provide an example please. when i call you a hypocrite, i do it with what i assume are your own values, i don't think i have ever actually criticized you for doing something i was doing, or if i was, i did not notice that i was doing it. so again, please provide citation."
You want to know how you're a hypocrite? You said I wasn't "much of a debater" when your idea of a debate is openly announcing a trap to your intended target instead of just, I don't know, actually having a debate.
1
-
1
-
@davidlewis6728 "love it how you claim victory solely off of an impotent so called trap"
You mean like what you're doing?
"the trap has to actually prove something!"
You should follow your own advice because your "trap" did no such thing.
"if you want to respond to the trap without getting snared, you must respond in a way that is not indicative of the trap"
You mean like what you failed to do? In the middle of my previous comment, I said you were a shitty listener and that you were squarely intent on trying to "own" me instead of using facts or just, you know, paying attention to my words. I said that if you were truly paying attention, you wouldn't reply. But more importantly, the key to a successful trap is to not reveal it to the intended target. You failed at even that, therefore all your supposed expertise on traps is as bullshit as everything else you've said.
"if you tried to go point by point on why trump is bad, why the dems are better, and why trump is not just being a troll with his presidency then that would be one thing"
Except you're such an ass kisser for Trump that I could list hundreds of valid complaints - like, for example, how Trump once promised to donate nearly $3 million raised from a charity fundraiser for military veterans, but used the money for his own campaign, i.e. embezzlement - and you would find some excuse for why it doesn't count. If I happen to be wrong and you're not in fact blindly defending Trump, don't reply.
"but responding with baseless accusations and 'no u' retorts pretty much proves you are angry"
That's what you've been doing this whole time. You don't seem to have a problem with it, so shut up, hypocrite.
"but you are saying someone is better than him"
Did I say someone was better than him? Check my previous comments. Where did I make that my thesis? No, my underlying point is that while I don't expect you to switch parties just because someone online said so, if Trump did something that you take issue with when anyone else does it, you should at the very least be equally angry about it.
"in conclusion, i annihilate libtard feelings with logic and facts"
You've never done that. You will never do that because you never had logic and facts in the first place. You'd use them if you had them, but you don't.
"and the left can't do anything right, especially meme."
You can't even set up a trap right, you incompetent dipshit.
"your move, retarded moron."
Ask yourself this: are you trying to prove that you're right or are you trying to prove that you're an asshole? You fail at the former and succeed at the latter, and I know that will never change.
Fuck you, commie.
1
-
1
-
@davidlewis6728 "plus i said all politicians were corrupt, so what is your point?"
The phrase "All politicians were/are corrupt" should no longer be allowed to be used by Trump supporters when I clearly remember Trump supporters in 2016 saying they liked him because he wasn't a Washington insider. So is he clean or is he as corrupt as anyone else in Washington?
I'm sure you'll respond with "I didn't call Trump a politician," which is exactly what the problem is and I'm glad we can agree on something.
"when did i say i had your best interests? no, i said it would not be in your best interests to prove my point, and that i doubted your capability to not make yourself look stupid"
No matter what I say, you're going to find some reason to twist it so that it does prove your point without you having to actually disprove anything I claimed.
"honestly, i was setting up a trap that would prove my point, that people with trump derangement syndrome walk into every blatant piece of bait and are great advertisements for trump. thank you for being predictably stupid, you npc moron."
You see? Right there. This is what every single Styx supporter does when they have no evidence to support them. You think after enough time here, I don't pick up on patterns? Keep projecting your failings, asshole. Maybe with enough practice, it'll be the one thing you could be good at.
"i see everything trump says as a lie meant to bring out this kind of reaction"
If this is your excuse, don't tell me I'm below your standards when you clearly don't have any. When Ted Cruz lies, do you see his supporter claiming it's just to get a reaction? No, because there is only one group of people so lacking in standards that they think that excuse is dignified and I'm talking to a card-carrying member of it.
"but since i do not support leftist Hitler"
It's official. You're a joke.
Did you know that Germany already had a socialist party before the German Workers Party changed its name? The name change and those 25 points you're undoubtedly referring to were done before the Nazis rose to power as part of a complicated political strategy known as "lying to win an election." After they won, all the actual socialists were kicked out of the party. So Hitler was not a leftist and you're a stupid liar.
"i must be the strawman you have constructed to represent trump supporters"
Oh, you thought I was going to call you a Nazi. No, I was not. However, I saw one Styx subscriber openly proclaim he was proud to be a National Socialist. What was that thing you said earlier?
"if you are what i think you are, i would use this opportunity to avoid embodying the very thing i am being accused of, else i would consider if it could be turned into a compliment"
Yeah, so if you don't want me to call you a Nazi, don't hang out with them.
"you fucking moron. you dumb, worthless fucking npc moron. i am not even mad. you walked right into my trap EVEN WHEN I POINTED IT OUT TO YOU."
You're giving yourself more credit than you will ever deserve. Stop stroking your ego now before you get calluses, you fucking asshole.
"and you wonder why trump says the things he does? it is just so fucking fun to watch you make yourself look like a fool"
You know, you wouldn't be doing any of this if you had any actual facts to back you up. And if you respond to this comment, you'll prove me right.
"#1 is whataboutism"
Oh, so now you have an issue with it?
"#2 is both irrelevant, and has already been shown to be inaccurate because i said he was LESS corrupt and using lies to mislead YOU.
"
Your sentence is grammatically incorrect. It should say "#2 is irrelevant and inaccurate." Anyway, no, #2 is neither because you're still defending a liar.
"#3 that is being contested as we speak, and it is seemingly leaning towards the opposite conclusion, even when you take into account the 'evidence' the other side is emphasizing all the damn time.
"
"Members of his administration are corrupt and/or unqualified" is being contested? Sure. Keep telling yourself that.
"#4 ok, everyone who disagrees with the totalitarian communists is a liar, got it.
"
Not even close to what I said, you piece of shit. Communism is the abolition of private property, which literally no one in the Democratic Party is advocating. And totalitarianism is complete subservience to the state, which again, no one is advocating. So you're a liar AND a piece of shit.
"#5 the thing that clearly exists.
"
No, it does not. I know because unlike you, I've actually met Democrats.
"#6 no, you don't think, stop lying
"
Good comeback, Dad. That is WAY more effective than using facts. You're really making me look like a fool.
"#8 'this isn't about being a sore loser'
proceeds to claim that Hilary should have won. at least trump admitted he would only accept the results if he won, what has Hilary been up to since she lost, again?
"
In a perfect world, Hillary would not have been the nominee. But since she was, and more people voted for her, what sense does it make to say the current president is duly elected when he lost the majority of votes? And of course Trump would only accept the results if he won. Every time he endorsed a candidate who lost, he either throws them under the bus (Roy Moore) or pretends he never knew them by, for example, deleting tweets in support of him (Sean Spicer).
"#9 yes, everyone who disagrees with the Russian collusion narrative from the totalitarian communists is a radical conspiracy theorist.
"
You are a shitty listener, you know that? First of all, "collusion" has no specific legal meaning in criminal law. There are collusive acts, but there is no crime called "collusion." It'd be like if you committed arson, but when you went to court, your lawyer argued "Your Honor, my client is innocent as there is no such crime called 'setting houses on fire'." So even if Trump was found 100% guilty of corroborating with the Russians, he'd still say "But I didn't collude" and you would buy it because you're a predictable piece of shit. What was found, however, is that Russians interfered in a federal election to help Trump win, and Trump was not exonerated from obstruction of justice charges. This was repeated multiple times by a Republican prosecutor hired by a Republican president's Republican Deputy Attorney General at a time when all branches of government were controlled by Republicans. Just saying.
"#10 you see, i was right, you aren't capable of being reasonable even after i warn you of my intentions. are you a troll or something?"
Fuck you. You were never intent on being "reasonable."
"i know the far left is pretty fucking stupid in general"
Shut up, you stupid Jeb supporter.
Didn't like that?
Thought not.
So don't call me far left, Jeb.
"but every time i interact with you people"
Bullshit. You don't interact with anyone on the left, liar.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Warren_Peace All that Trump described as "new" border wall built so far are replacements for existing barriers. The work includes building steel bollard fencing, which consists of vertical steel posts with a small amount of space between them.
It is not, however, the solid wall Trump promised during the campaign.
There is a new eight mile stretch of border barriers being built, but it took - what? - three years to get started. I seem to recall that Trump signed an executive order on his fifth day in office to make a border wall. Why the wait? Democratic opposition? Pfft, nah. He brags about what a great negotiator he is and he used to be a registered Democrat. If he were competent, it wouldn't take that much effort to get them on his side. No, there are other factors. For example, some of the property along the border is privately owned and there are Texans unwilling to give it up for the wall, and none of the wall prototypes met all CBP requirements.
In short, if Trump won, there's no border wall to show for it.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
nowonyuno 1. There is literally nothing you have told me that I didn't already hear from Styx's subscribers or Styx himself. You have no original thoughts; you're not better than me.
2. Why should I indulge you and answer your question about Warren and Biden when everything you said screams that you're not pulling your head out of Trump's ass to listen to other people's views?
3. Trump inherited a good economy from the guy who brought us out of a recession. If you cared as much about facts as you pretend to, you'd know that.
https://www.businessinsider.com/9-charts-comparing-trump-economy-to-obama-bush-administrations-2019-9#job-growth-another-key-labor-market-measure-followed-a-similar-pattern-the-great-recession-destroyed-millions-of-jobs-per-quarter-but-the-economy-has-steadily-added-around-200000-jobs-per-month-since-president-obamas-second-term-3
4. "None of you morons are trying to sell us on your trash in the DNC. We get it, you dont like him, but you can't explain why your people are any better."
What does it matter? You're not voting Democrat anyway; you'll stick to Trump no matter how much he lies or fails to prosecute Hillary.
5. "I dont care if Trump hurts your feelings soy flake, that's not a good enough reason to fire him"
Breaking campaign finance law, lying on an hourly basis, cheating on his wife and lying about it . . . yeah, those seem like good reasons to distrust a president. Maybe you should try actually talking to a Democrat every now and then and pay attention instead of making baseless assumptions. Also, Trump is the guy who brags about how much he whines, so shut the fuck up about feelings.
6. "And likewise giving the job to Pedo Joe because he's a 'nice guy' isn't a good reason."
I can definitely tell you've never actually conversed with a Democrat because A) you defend a guy who groped underaged models and once said of a ten-year-old girl "I am going to be dating her in 10 years. Can you believe it?”, and B) I have never heard anyone say they support Joe Biden simply because he's a "nice guy."
7. "Trump is a prick but he gets things done. If he didn't you would be attacking him on the economy but you're not."
I already did, liar. Now where's the border wall? Where's the special prosecutor he promised would investigate Hillary? Where are the libel laws he promised to reopen? Where are the lawsuits he said he would file against his sexual assault accusers? Nowhere, that's where. North Korea announced it would stop holding talks with the U.S. because they didn't want to give Trump something to brag about. He withdrew troops from Syria just because Erdogan asked and then sent them right to Saudi Arabia. So what accomplishments are you talking about?
8. "So all you got is orange man bad and its pathetic. Fuck your feelings beta flake"
I was right. You don't pay attention because everything I just said proved that to be completely bullshit.
Now fuck off.
1
-
@Warren_Peace 1. Imagine if Trump won the popular vote but Hillary won the Electoral College. We both know you wouldn't accept the results.
2. You have less than nothing. I know because you haven't presented a single fact.
3. All of this is bullshit.
3a. Trump is a serial liar and a criminal no less sleazy and dishonest than anyone else in Washington.
3b. While polls are not Word of God, multiple polls show Trump losing the general election to several Democratic candidates:
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls/general_election/
3c. Your pimp is already extremely disingenuous, so how is that an issue now?
3d. The Democrats won Kentucky, Virginia and Louisiana this month - all red states. Try again.
4. "I've seen insecure white men play the victim. You don't do yourself any favors by talking exactly like a mass shooter recording a manifesto."
4. "Now that is racist and sexist, also you seem to have forgotten that Leftists include white men mass shooters with manifestos... So it does not only fail to disprove his claim, it also makes you look like an ignorant dick.
"
See? My point exactly. As for "leftists" being mass shooters, I can only think of two cases that could possibly apply. There's the Pittsburgh synagogue shooter who Styx himself claimed without evidence was a Communist. And there's the Dayton shooter, who, yes, was a liberal, but local police stated the shooting was not politically motivated. Also, the latter never left a manifesto, but the former did write things on Gab like:
"HIAS [Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society] likes to bring invaders in that kill our people. I can't sit by and watch my people get slaughtered. Screw your optics, I'm going in."
Does whining about "white genocide" sound like something a leftist would do?
Try again.
5. "State governorship does not equate to which side the State would lean on come Presidential Elections. Trumps overwhelming victory against all odds in 2016 even in States controlled by Democrat Governors shows that...
"
That goes both ways. Illinois and Massachusetts had Republican governors and yet their states voted for Hillary.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
nowonyuno "If they helped Trump win then how did they know to go to Wisconsin and Hillary didn't"
I shouldn't be surprised that you have to resort to logical fallacies to feel like you're winning.
"You have repeated every broken talking point"
Broken by who? The same side that keeps getting theirs leaked?
"he is dead to you people because he failed you"
He's a Republican hired by a Republican president's Republican Deputy Attorney General at a time when every branch of government was controlled by Republicans. The Democrats had nothing to do with his involvement. You know why you think he failed? You parrot the same talking points Trump fed you: "No collusion!" Collusion has no specific legal meaning in criminal law. There are collusive acts, but there's no crime called "collusion." It's like if you committed arson but your lawyer argued you were innocent because there's no crime called "setting houses on fire." Yes, Mueller found Trump didn't directly corroborate with the Russians. He also stated that Trump wasn't innocent of obstructing justice. And oh yeah, our elections face security risks your pimp has never attempted to address.
"The republicans hate Trump so you whining about them makes no sense"
They let him run as a Republican. His biggest defenders are Republicans. If they hate him so much, then you forfeit the right to praise him as a master negotiator. Think about it. If he can't even negotiate with his own party, what good is he?
"Why would Putin want a political novice like Trump when he knows Hillary could be bought and paid for"
Yes, why would Putin want someone who doesn't know what they're doing and can be easily manipulated?
"How come you never want to talk about her smashing her devices with hammers and deleting emails?"
Whataboutism was a popular propaganda tool in the Soviet Union. Also, one of Hillary's aides destroyed her devices, not Hillary herself. If you cared about facts as much as you pretend to, you'd know that.
"She actually committed crimes and you act like it never happened."
Your guy promised to hire a special prosecutor to investigate her. If she's so guilty, he should've made good on his word as soon as he was sworn in. But he didn't, so don't get mad at me for his incompetence.
"If Trump had deleted one email you mutts would lose your damn minds."
https://www.businessinsider.com/mueller-report-trump-campaign-deleted-information-relevant-to-probe-2019-4
"Turn off Rachael Moscow"
I already don't watch her, liar.
You're worthless.
Try again.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Rose Quartz No, I am not wrong. If all of the facts are on your side, then no one here should have any issue presenting them and letting them speak for themselves. But that's not what happens. 99% of the time, a Styx subscriber will either say they don't have to show any evidence because they don't have any, they show evidence from a "news" outlet with just as little credibility as CNN, or they take an article that unambiguously contradicts them and they deliberately misinterpret it.
I know for a fact the number of Obama voters who voted for Trump is just barely in the double digits, so stop using it as a "gotcha" response. Your fellow Trump ass kissers have told me on multiple occasions to kill myself in misspelled messages, so don't give me your bullshit about how I'm hateful and retarded and all the "normal" people are voting for Trump. Need I remind you that Trump has cheated on all of his wives and, according to YOUR OWN PARTY, lying about adultery by itself counts as an impeachable offense. And oh yeah, there was no one else in the room when Clinton was ruining Monica's dress, so that "no eyewitnesses" line you use for the Ukraine scandal is bullshit. If you were a normal person, you wouldn't happily defend a criminal and parrot his lies. Why would it matter what you think about me when you never think in the first place?
You never had any facts on your side and you never will.
You are nothing.
Fuck you.
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
-
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@JesusPerez-iw3ey Fucking hell, man. It's winter break; why are you writing essays? Believe me, I've watched his rallies and seen his interviews, as much as I didn't want to.
1. What "whole conversation" with the widow? Is the entire transcript online? I know it isn't because the White House would have released it.
2. What Democrat from California? I looked up "California Democrat manipulates widow" and came up with zilch.
3. Trump has donated to veterans’ groups over the years, but there is often a discrepancy between the amount he pledges and the amount he donates.
In 1995, he said he saved the annual veterans’ parade with a $1 million cash donation, yet the organizer later confirmed he gave somewhere between $325,000 and $375,000.
When you mention he skipped a debate for a fundraiser that netted $6 million for veterans, do you mean the fundraiser that campaign manager Corey Lewandowski said actually raised $4.5 million? It's great to raise money for veterans, but what point is there in Trump claiming he raised $6 million when he didn't? That fundraiser netted more money in one day than his foundation gave to charity in four years, so while it is great that money was raised for veterans, I'm not convinced this wasn't at least partly for show. Oh, and there were also two instances of Trump asking for politicians’ help to remove veterans selling wares on Fifth Avenue, where Trump Tower is located, and also using Trump University to scam veterans.
4. When he said Mexico sends criminals, the implication was that only he could stop it by building a border wall and, beyond that, alienating a major trade partner. Turns out, more migrants are coming from Central America now. A border wall would be as questionably effective against them as it was against Mexicans.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Rich S I have indeed been there three times, but then I haven't seen everything in Washington DC despite it being an hour's drive from my house. I looked up the numbers. Since 1994, Washington has provided the Palestinians with more than $5.2 billion through USAID. Now, is that more than a border wall would cost? It's hard to say. Trump initially claimed the border wall would cost $4 billion, but then he said it would be $6 to $7 billion, and then he said it would cost up to $10 billion. Earlier this month, he said it would be $15 billion, or even $20 billion. Homeland Security estimated it would cost $21.6 billion. So we can save the $5.2 billion we've given to Palestinians for the border wall. The best case scenario is that the $5.2 billion alone would be enough, but since Trump has given multiple estimates, each bigger than the last, I doubt that.
But please, continue calling me a dunce for not believing in your stupid wall.
1
-
1
-
1
-
Rich S I didn't realize there was a West Bank barrier because I'd never heard of it nor personally visited it. I'm not for "leading groups of illegal aliens across Von Trapp style." My complaint is in the effectiveness of a 2,000-mile border wall across multiple types of terrain, including mountains.
https://www.businessinsider.com/us-mexico-border-wall-photos-maps-2018-5
https://www.newsdeeply.com/water/community/2017/04/24/trumps-border-wall-could-have-lasting-effect-on-rivers-water-supply
There's the 3.6-mile fence in southern California's Otay Mountain Wilderness. If someone is able to climb the mountains in the Otay Wilderness, including a 3,500-foot mountain peak known for its steep climb and abundance of tarantulas, a 15-foot wall will not make a difference. There's also the matter of Arizona ranchers who own land along the border, which should be cause for concern if you object to the government infringing on private property. Then there's Rio Grande River, the boundary between Texas and Mexico. Legally, the boundary runs down the middle of the river. So if you build a wall along the Rio Grande, where would it go? In the middle of the river? That would be impractical and potentially restrict water flow important to farms and towns on both sides of the river. On the Mexican side? They won't agree to it. On the Texan side? Great, now Texans are going to cede their right to access the water.
But sure, call me a dunce and keep pretending this wall is going to work.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@1940limited 1. Predictably, you continue to prove yourself to be an unabashed Trump ass kisser who resorts to insults and name calling instead of answering a simple question like the adult you're pretending to be. I asked you if "RINO" was just the insult you gave to every Republican you didn't like, and not only did you double down on your insults, you projected onto me. Wow, you're a moron.
2. You're demonstrating the same arrogance you mocked the media for having when they said Hillary would win 2016. Averaging all the polls, Trump has never had 50% approval. Not only that, but he fired three pollsters for coming up with results that had him trailing several Democratic candidates. So either the pollsters who he fired were lying (which means he lied about hiring only the best people) or your head is stuck irreversibly far up your own ass.
3. Wrong! The Amway Center has a seating capacity of 20,000, not 25,000. Strike one, moron. Secondly, according to the Orlando Sentinel, the planned overflow area across from the arena was virtually empty as the rally began. So "many more camped outside" is a lie. Strike two. Finally, Trump claimed the event was oversold. That's also a lie. Two journalists who had their press credentials denied at the last minute bought tickets online and managed to get in. So it wasn't oversold. Strike three. You're out.
I want to be clear, though. Thousands of people still showed up for that event. That would ordinarily be very impressive, sure. All you and Trump had to do was not lie about it. And yet you two are such failures that you couldn't even manage that.
Go fuck yourself.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@theguylivinginyourwalls Alright, then. Let's start with crowd sizes.
On February 11 of this year, Trump and Beto O'Rourke had competing rallies in El Paso, Texas. Trump said of him, "He challenged us. So we had, let's say 35,000 people tonight and he has 200 people, 300 people. Not too good." An El Paso Fire Department spokesman told the El Paso Times that the venue where Trump was speaking holds 6,500 people for that type of event, and it was filled to capacity. Fire public information officer Enrique D. Aguilar told the newspaper that a few thousand more might have been standing outside, but there was no official count made of the outside crowd. Even with the highest estimates, there is no provable way that Trump had an audience of 35,000. Now, you might say Trump was just picking a high number at random, but Trump has a predictable habit of claiming his rallies had bigger crowds than they actually did.
Consider his appearance at the Houston Toyota Center on October 22, 2018 where he was rallying for "Lyin' Ted." Trump said big screens were put up to air footage from inside the venue to the “50,000 people outside who we love." Houston Police Chief Art Acevedo tweeted that there were only 3,000 people watching outside the Toyota Center.
Or consider Trump's rally in Springfield, Missouri last September, where he claimed there were 45,000 supporters outside JQH Arena. The city's public information chief told reporters that there were about 11,000 people inside the stadium and another 1,000 outside.
Or how about when Trump claims the media lied about the size of the crowd at his inauguration? Sean Spicer said Trump attracted “the largest audience ever to witness an inauguration." Trump claimed at this year's CPAC there actually was a huge crowd at his inauguration, but the photos taken by the National Park Service showing a significantly smaller crowd than what Obama's 2009 inauguration had were "taken hours before." However, a government photographer admitted to editing photos to make Trump's inauguration crowd look bigger than it was after Trump complained to the National Park Service. And according to figures shared by the Metro Washington subway system, 193,000 trips had been taken by 11 am on Donald Trump’s inauguration day, compared to 513,000 during the same period on Obama's inauguration day.
But hey, maybe Trump isn't good with numbers. It's not like being a businessman depends on being good with numbers or anything. How about things he said that can be easily proven wrong with two seconds of research? We'll limit it to within the past year just for the sake of everyone's time.
When he decided not to cancel a scheduled appearance in Pittsburgh shortly after the synagogue shooting last October, his justification was that the New York Stock Exchange was open the day after 9/11. It was actually closed until the 17th. At a Wisconsin rally a few days before, on the subject of Brett Kavanaugh's confirmation hearing, he said "You know, many presidents don't get a chance to put a Supreme Court justice on." There have only been four presidents in history who didn't nominate a justice to the Supreme Court. In September 2018, when asked if he would ask the FBI to investigate the allegations against Brett Kavanaugh, Trump said that "it would seem that the FBI really doesn’t do that." Let me repeat that: they're called the Federal Bureau of INVESTIGATION, and Trump thinks they don't do investigations. Ooh, and there was that rally in Tampa, Florida on July 31 where Trump said "U.S. Steel just announced that they are building six new steel mills. And that number is soon going to be lifted, but I'm not allowed to say that, so I won't." First of all, so much for being a stable genius. But more importantly, U.S. Steel didn't have any information on their website on any new steel mills at the time and a spokeswoman for U.S. Steel said Trump wasn't privy to any exclusive information. And let's cap this off with another one about numbers. A year ago today, Trump said in a Fox and Friends interview that the United States has thousands of immigration judges. There are fewer than 400.
And all of that was just a partial list.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@hideandseekchampion4854 You didn't answer the question. How are your ideas any better, on the off-chance you have any? They're not, and that's precisely because you don't have any. Your strategy, as you continue to demonstrate without fail, is to act like you're not a pack of dishonest children who thinks everything Trump does and touches is a win. Ed Gillespie, Luther Strange, Roy Moore, Dean Heller, Scott Walker, Adam Laxalt, Jeff Johnson, Bill Schuette, Kris Kobach, Bob Stefanowski, Walker Stapleton, John Cox, Dave Brat, Pete Sessions, Katie Arrington, Keith Rothfus, John Chrin, Claudia Tenney, John Faso, Dan Donovan, Jay Webber, Danny Tarkanian, Erik Paulsen, Jason Lewis, Dave Hughes, Lena Epstein, Bruce Poliquin, Kevin Yoder, Rod Blum, Randy Hultgren, Dana Rohrabacher, Diane Harkey, Leah Vukmir, Patrick Morrisey, Lou Barletta, Jim Renacci, Bob Hugin, Matt Rosendale, Karin Housley, and John James were all endorsed by Trump. Every single one of them lost their races. Now, that wasn't all of the candidates Trump endorsed, but let me put this in perspective. Trump endorsed 116 candidates in various 2018 elections. 74 of them won, which is 64%. By comparison, Obama endorsed 342 candidates that same year. 232 won. That's 68%. So please remind me which side is doing all of the winning.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@fasdfwgfgsdfg Clint Eastwood officially lost his coolness when he talked to an empty chair, Mike Tyson isn't as relevant as he used to be, Kid Rock was never relevant, and Styx isn't a celebrity. Also, "Trump loving closet freak"? Why is it okay for you to make baseless claims without evidence but not me? Oh wait, it's because Trump and his supporters are all hypocritical serial liars, isn't it? You don't claim to be winning because you have celebrities on your side who are even less admirable than everyone else on the other side, as if it should ever automatically count as "winning" to have celebrities on your side. But since you think it does, does your side have Ron Perlman, Stephen King, Meryl Streep, Harrison Ford, and Mark Hamill? No, it does not.
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
-
SirVixIsVexed 1. From where I'm standing, it's not like conservative and alt-right accounts are being suspended and demonetized because they refuse to get on board with the liberal agenda. In the case of someone like, say, Steven Crowder, I heard Razorfist describe it as "Crowder got demonetized for calling someone gay, even though the word is in the guy's Twitter handle." Except it wasn't just one time, as the implication might have been. In actuality, it was more like "Crowder got deplatformed for harassing a gay man for two years." I'm sure you have examples of people getting unfairly targeted, but unless they were minding their own business, I can't gather much sympathy.
2. Project Veritas? The group that passes doctored and deliberately edited videos as "evidence"? Yeah, no, I ain't buying that bullshit.
3. Here's what I said: "You only think they are because you call every liberal you don't like a leftist so you can justify ignoring them."
When I said "ignoring them," I meant ignoring liberals when they try to make a point about something. I'll give you some examples. I was once told by a Styx subscriber to look up FBI Table 21A, which he said was undeniable proof that illegal immigrants commit more violent crime than native born citizens. Table 21A has nothing to do with immigration legal or otherwise, but when I explained that, he ignored me and kept acting like it was all the proof he needed. Another time, I was told by a different Styx subscriber to look up a documentary called "Everything Is A Rich Man's Trick." He said that everyone who watched it loved it, and that no one had ever successfully refuted any of its points. It had a pretty high rating on iMDB, so I figured maybe he was onto something. The documentary is basically about how a secret society runs everything and we're all being lied to. So naturally, the first thing the narrator said was "We all know the official telling of the JFK assassination is wrong." That confused me. I stopped three and a half minutes in and I explained to the guy who recommended it "Hey, your narrator is contradicting himself. How would we all know the truth of JFK's assassination if we've all been lied to?" The guy then disappears further up his own ass, acting like I had taken the red pill (pro tip: never sell a stupid movie with a reference to a much better one). So when I say "you're ignoring liberals," I mean you're basically talking to yourself and one other person happens to be there who you won't let get a word in.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@barahng According to the report, the Russian group Internet Research Agency "used social media accounts and interest groups to sow discord in the U.S.
political system through what it termed 'information warfare.' The campaign evolved from a
generalized program designed in 2014 and 2015 to undermine the U.S. electoral system, to a targeted operation that by early 2016 favored candidate Trump and disparaged candidate Clinton."
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/5955379-Redacted-Mueller-Report.html#document/
Here, you can see that passage right there on PAGE FUCKING FOUR. And on page 22, it says "By early to mid-2016, IRA operations included supporting the Trump
Campaign and disparaging candidate Hillary Clinton. The IRA made various expenditures to carry
out those activities, including buying political advertisements on social media in the names of U.S. persons and entities. Some IRA employees, posing as U.S. persons and without revealing their Russian association, communicated electronically with individuals associated with the Trump
Campaign and with other political activists to seek to coordinate political activities, including the
staging of political rallies." The rest of the section is redacted, but the conclusion that the text that wasn't redacted proves the IRA didn't help Trump win is misleading at best. Also, Comey testified that while the FBI did not get access to the server, the DNC hired a private cybersecurity firm that shared its forensic analysis of the DNC server with the FBI. And nowhere in the report could I find anything that said the DNC hack had no effect on the election.
As for why Putin would favor Trump over Hillary, well, you tell me: which one of them openly crushes on Putin?
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
-
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
-
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
-
@renkol123 I admitted no such thing, liar.
1. “Reasonable people understand that the ‘language of the political arena, like the language used in labor disputes … is often vituperative, abusive and inexact,'” argued Powell's motion to dismiss a lawsuit against her by Dominion. “It is likewise a ‘well recognized principle that political statements are inherently prone to exaggeration and hyperbole.'”
Those are Powell's own words. You lied.
2. There is no "acceptable" amount of fraud, but since making the number of instances of fraud zero is unrealistic, we should be keeping it low enough to not affect the outcome of an election. Also, there is no valid evidence that mail-in ballots are more susceptible to fraud.
https://theconversation.com/6-ways-mail-in-ballots-are-protected-from-fraud-145666
3. Questioning 2020 is not an inherently objectionable action. Shady things happen in every election and should be looked into. However, the difference with 2020 is that what is being questioned is whether the election was stolen, an idea based entirely on lies. Do I need to repeat that Attorney General Barr - an extremely loyal member of the Trump administration - came right out and said it wasn't stolen? I don't trust him, but if he was lying about that, then he pissed off his boss and his boss' supporters for seemingly no good reason.
I was paying attention. You are a liar.
THERE. WAS. NO. STEAL.
1
-
@renkol123 I was paying attention. You are just lying.
1. I'm not aware of any lawsuits over election fraud that took place until after it was called for Biden, and when that happened, everyone who publicly claimed the election was stolen and went to court for it ended up saying on the record that they were lying. Sidney Powell said no reasonable person would take her Dominion voting machine claims as statements of fact. Rudy Giuliani said his claim that Republican poll observers were expelled was not true. AG Barr flat out said no fraud took place that would have affected the results. How many times does that need to happen before it gets through to you?
2. How much fraud is acceptable? Ideally, none. But the thing is, the amount of election or voter fraud that actually occurs - that is, the legal definition of it - is statistically zero. Not nonexistent, but so infrequent that it is statistically zero. And it's always detected and fixed. All the election fraud evidence people like you point to proves nothing except that you don't actually know the difference between human error and election fraud, and if you think the system is "borked" even though the fact that it is instead, as I said, always detected and fixed, that's on you.
3. Congratulations, now YOU have your own Russiagate: a conspiracy for which you delude yourself into thinking mountains of evidence exist that actually doesn't.
THERE. WAS. NO. STEAL.
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
-
@EnhancedCognition From the information I could find about Trump's lawsuits, most of them (or at least the higher profile ones) were settled out of court. Which is hilarious because Trump once said "If you settle suits, you get sued more. It's true. I don't settle anything. I don't settle." Here are just a few lawsuits he settled: a $25 million lawsuit with Palm Beach in 2006, a $40 million lawsuit with Deutsche Bank in 2008, and a lawsuit in the late 1990s in which a rival casino owner accused Trump of spying and conspiracy (but still, "no collusion," right?).
Oh, and there was that time he was sued by the Justice Department for housing discrimination. And this was during the Nixon administration. Yes, even the Nixon administration thought Trump was too unethical.
But look, I totally get why people would want to vote for a political outsider who can shake up the system. I really do. What I don't get is why anyone ever thought Trump should be that. There was a headline during the election about Ted Cruz's college roommate saying something to the effect of "He could agree with me on everything and I would hate him 1% less because everything I hate about him stems from his personality." That's how I see Trump. I'm sure some people like him specifically because of his brash personality, but oh my God, does it get really annoying really quickly. If you want someone to send a message to Washington, why would it be the guy whose history with lawsuits reads like everyone else's in Washington?
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@pgtmr2713 And you tell me liberals are more violent. Let me tell you a story.
In January 2005, Trump Hotels and Casino Resorts filed a lawsuit in a Florida state court after the opening of two Native American casinos, which both operated under the Hard Rock brand. In his lawsuit, Trump claimed that the companies had unlawfully conspired with one of his former associates to cheat him out of a deal, arguing that the projects should be turned over to him. Negotiations with the tribe and construction of the casinos had taken years, raising the possibility that the state’s four-year statute of limitations had passed before Trump finally got around to filing the lawsuit. If Power Plant (an affiliate of the casinos' developer) could prove Trump knew in early 2000 that his former associate was working on the Hard Rock deal, the case would be thrown out of court.
Trump claimed he learned about the deal in January 2001, around the time of the groundbreaking. However, defendants said he had been informed of the projects in 1999. Trump offered no supporting evidence for his claim, so the opposing lawyers filed extensive discovery demands, seeking emails, computer files, calendars and other records that might prove he knew about the casino deal before 2000.
A full year into the case, Trump and his company, Trump Hotels, had produced only a single box of documents, many of which were irrelevant. Power Plant's lawyers obtained a court order compelling Trump and his company to hand over the relevant information and documents. In a March 2006 response, Trump’s lawyers argued that the emails and other electronic documents had not been produced because the company didn’t have them, claiming it had no servers until 2001, the year Trump claimed he had learned of the Power Plant project. They also claimed Trump Hotels had no policy regarding retaining documents until 2003.
The judge ordered Trump executives to file sworn statements attesting to how their email systems had worked from 1996 onward. In response, Trump Hotels filed an affidavit from one of its information technology managers stating that it had had no servers prior to 2001, which was a lie.
During a deposition nine months after he had signed the affidavit, the same Trump executive admitted his assertions in it were untrue. An IBM Domino server had been installed in 1999, the same year witnesses for Power Plant contended that Trump had learned of the casino deal. As early as 1997, the Trump corporations had used servers off-site, according to sworn testimony. The following year, the Trump Organization and Trump Hotels moved to another email provider.
Despite knowing back in 2001 that Trump might want to file a lawsuit, his companies had deleted emails and other records without checking if they might be evidence in his case. Beginning around 2003, the company wiped clear the data from everyone’s computers every year. Lawyers for Trump Hotels had never sent out the usual communication issued during litigation instructing employees to stop destroying records that might be related to the case. The deletions continued, and backup tapes were reused, erasing the data they held. Power Plant's lawyers also discovered that after the lawsuit was filed, Trump Hotels disposed of a key witness’ computer without preserving the data on it.
In subsequent filings, Power Plant maintained that Trump Hotels had intentionally deceived the court in its March 2006 filing when it claimed it had located no emails relevant to the case because, at that point, it had not yet conducted any searches of its computer system. Trump Hotels executives did not instruct their IT department to examine backup computer tapes until 2007. But when computer specialists finally attempted to electronically locate any relevant documents that had survived the deletions, the procedures were inadequate. While looking for relevant documents, the technology team was told to use only two search terms: the name of the tribe and the last name of the former Trump associate. So even if there was an email that stated, “Donald Trump learned the full details of the Hard Rock casino deal in Florida in 1999,” it would not have been found by that search.
Power Plant asked the judge either to impose sanctions or allow its own expert to search for relevant digital records. Trump Hotels argued it had done nothing improper, although its lawyers acknowledged having made some mistakes. Still, the judge ordered Trump Hotels to make its servers and computer systems available for inspection by a computer forensics consulting firm. That review showed there was no digital data in the computers, servers or backup tapes prior to January 2001, when Trump claimed to have learned of the Florida casino deal.
Trump Hotels dropped the suit a few months later.
But sure, Trump would never destroy evidence.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Tenskwatawa4U Conspiracy, however, is unlawful.
"If two or more persons conspire either to commit any offense against the United States, or to defraud the United States, or any agency thereof in any manner or for any purpose, and one or more of such persons do any act to effect the object of the conspiracy, each shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.
If, however, the offense, the commission of which is the object of the conspiracy, is a misdemeanor only, the punishment for such conspiracy shall not exceed the maximum punishment provided for such misdemeanor." (18 U.S. Code § 371)
And yes, I am fully aware that Mueller wasn't able to establish that Trump conspired with the Russians. Conspiracy law, however, usually requires only that conspirators have agreed to engage in a certain unlawful act to establish an illegal agreement (which Trump's campaign staff absolutely did).
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
-
In the 70s, Warren was, according to friends from her days in law school, a diehard conservative. Warren was deeply influenced by the "Law and Economics" movement, a corporate-funded initiative with the explicit goal of cultivating more conservative judges. By the '80s, she was a firm believer in Reaganomics.
Around the time she started her law career at UT Austin, Bill Clinton ran another campaign for governor of Arkansas, one of his central campaign promises being to prevent utility companies from preying on the poor and the elderly. Warren sided with the companies, asserting that the state should institute automatic utility rates even if prices went up. She then began looking through bankruptcy cases to prove that people filing for it were "all a bunch of cheaters." That's not what she found. Later after that realization, she would change her party affiliation from Republican to Democrat.
I'm just saying, I don't think "changing your mind" is the same as "posing," as Styx seems to believe
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
-
samplexample Alright, then. Let's start with crowd sizes.
On February 11 of this year, Trump and Beto O'Rourke had competing rallies in El Paso, Texas. Trump said of him, "He challenged us. So we had, let's say 35,000 people tonight and he has 200 people, 300 people. Not too good." An El Paso Fire Department spokesman told the El Paso Times that the venue where Trump was speaking holds 6,500 people for that type of event, and it was filled to capacity. Fire public information officer Enrique D. Aguilar told the newspaper that a few thousand more might have been standing outside, but there was no official count made of the outside crowd. Even with the highest estimates, there is no provable way that Trump had an audience of 35,000. Now, you might say Trump was just picking a high number at random, but Trump has a predictable habit of claiming his rallies had bigger crowds than they actually did.
Consider his appearance at the Houston Toyota Center on October 22, 2018 where he was rallying for "Lyin' Ted." Trump said big screens were put up to air footage from inside the venue to the “50,000 people outside who we love." Houston Police Chief Art Acevedo tweeted that there were only 3,000 people watching outside the Toyota Center.
Or consider Trump's rally in Springfield, Missouri last September, where he claimed there were 45,000 supporters outside JQH Arena. The city's public information chief told reporters that there were about 11,000 people inside the stadium and another 1,000 outside.
Or how about when Trump claims the media lied about the size of the crowd at his inauguration? Sean Spicer said Trump attracted “the largest audience ever to witness an inauguration." Trump claimed at this year's CPAC there actually was a huge crowd at his inauguration, but the photos taken by the National Park Service showing a significantly smaller crowd than what Obama's 2009 inauguration had were "taken hours before." However, a government photographer admitted to editing photos to make Trump's inauguration crowd look bigger than it was after Trump complained to the National Park Service. And according to figures shared by the Metro Washington subway system, 193,000 trips had been taken by 11 am on Donald Trump’s inauguration day, compared to 513,000 during the same period on Obama's inauguration day.
But hey, maybe Trump isn't good with numbers. It's not like being a businessman depends on being good with numbers or anything. How about things he said that can be easily proven wrong with two seconds of research? We'll limit it to within the past year just for the sake of everyone's time.
When he decided not to cancel a scheduled appearance in Pittsburgh shortly after the synagogue shooting last October, his justification was that the New York Stock Exchange was open the day after 9/11. It was actually closed until the 17th. At a Wisconsin rally a few days before, on the subject of Brett Kavanaugh's confirmation hearing, he said "You know, many presidents don't get a chance to put a Supreme Court justice on." There have only been four presidents in history who didn't nominate a justice to the Supreme Court. In September 2018, when asked if he would ask the FBI to investigate the allegations against Brett Kavanaugh, Trump said that "it would seem that the FBI really doesn’t do that." Let me repeat that: they're called the Federal Bureau of INVESTIGATION, and Trump thinks they don't do investigations. Ooh, and there was that rally in Tampa, Florida on July 31 where Trump said "U.S. Steel just announced that they are building six new steel mills. And that number is soon going to be lifted, but I'm not allowed to say that, so I won't." First of all, so much for being a stable genius. But more importantly, U.S. Steel didn't have any information on their website on any new steel mills at the time and a spokeswoman for U.S. Steel said Trump wasn't privy to any exclusive information. And let's cap this off with another one about numbers. A year ago today, Trump said in a Fox and Friends interview that the United States has thousands of immigration judges. There are fewer than 400.
And all of that was just a partial list.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@lucianraphael9527 1. There are other ways, actually. It's just that once "tariffs" became an option, anything else is anti-American.
2. Building weapons and torturing prisoners? Uh, yeah, actually, that is exactly what North Korea is doing. They did it before the talks and they continue to do it now. Getting them to the bargaining table won't matter if there are no meaningful results to come of it.
3. https://www.houstonchronicle.com/business/article/Houston-metal-manufacturer-to-shutter-due-to-14399616.php
https://www.thestate.com/news/politics-government/article234229477.html
https://marketrealist.com/2019/08/us-steel-industry-has-plenty-bad-news-trump/
Does all this mean the tariffs are working?
4. I was asked for an answer on an alternative to addressing North Korea. I gave it. And I explained that if, as you yourself stated, Trump can bring North Korea (a country with such open hostility towards the United States that anti-American propaganda is included in the school curricula) to the bargaining table, doing the same for China should be a feasible option. You praise Trump for the seemingly impossible task of getting into talks with North Korea, but you go "Talks with China? No, that's not possible." And don't tell me China has the much bigger economy. You're the side claiming Trump won when he got Mexico and Canada (two huge trading partners) to agree to the USMCA terms. So my point still stands: you're contradicting yourself.
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@muglypunt968 1. You should not need to have other people tell you to use proper grammar if you don't want to be taken as the joke you are. Seriously, "disdaine"? "Buisnesses"? I refuse to believe you're genuinely this stupid, but I can't reach any other conclusion.
2. Piss off. You never had substance to begin with.
3. "The tariffs aren't to damage China's economy, that's the ruse, it's to show people around the world America is back in business"
https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-tariffs-trade-war-layoffs-business-losses-2018-8
Seems to be working like a charm.
4. "You think china can be swayed from letting go of north Korea and that the left won't back a man who 'doesn't understand tariffs', as you copy and pasted multiple times, considering China has been fudging their number for a long time and alot of countries are already pulling out of China, as well as the left splintering and driving all the normies away"
So many things wrong here. So as we have established, the tariffs aren't meant to show America is back in business because they are failing to do that, so what other purpose do they serve? Convincing China to not be a currency manipulator? Didn't they just devalue the yuan? Yeah, so that clearly isn't working. If you want China to be swayed from anything, Trump's strategy isn't working. And if someone dissuaded from the left thinks a pathological liar is an improvement, they're not a "normie."
5. "With the slow decline of China's economic status they'll have to get creative to kick start their economy"
Please refer to the above link to see how tariffs aren't the solution to that, as you seem to think.
6. Not even the left wants war with China.
7. "You have nothing."
You have even less. You're a liar and a moron. Go fuck yourself.
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
-
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Goldenboy48 Those were manufacturing jobs moving to Mexico, not the manufacturers themselves.
What was that thing you said about playing semantics games? That's what you're doing.
At a rally in Springfield, Missouri, last September, Trump claimed there were 45,000 supporters stuck outside the event being held in JQH Arena. The public information chief for the city of Springfield told reporters there were about 11,000 people inside the stadium and another 1,000 outside.
At another rally in Houston last October, Trump boasted that there were 50,000 people watching the event outside the Toyota Center. Houston Police Chief Art Acevedo tweeted that there were only 3,000 people watching outside the venue.
Fuck you, stupid asshole.
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Will to Power Oh, don't worry about Trump. He gets more than enough ass kissing from you as is.
But why should you care anyway? If Trump didn't want so much negative press, then maybe he shouldn't have run for president. But since he did, is it so hard to comprehend the idea that maybe - just maybe - calling the press the "enemy of the people" won't make them want to say nice things about you? Because, since you brought up Hitler and the Nazis, here's a quote from the Nazi tabloid Der Stürmer:
"Jews are pests and disseminators of diseases. In whatever country they settle and spread themselves out, they produce the same effects as are produced in the human body by germs. ... In former times sane people and sane leaders of the peoples made short shrift of enemies of the people. They had them either expelled or killed."
And you wonder why people compare you to Nazis. Now, I'm not saying Trump has to kiss up to the press as hard as you do to him. I'm just saying that even he understands the importance of tone. All he had to do was say "It upsets me that news outlets prioritize ratings over accuracy." That's it. Everyone can agree with that. But calling them "enemy of the people" and threatening to reopen libel laws so he can sue them (even if he's joking, however much of a bullshit excuse that is) is what someone does when he wants the news to hate his fucking guts. You don't expect a kid to have anything nice about the school bully who calls him a fag, do you? And before you tell me "the media's doing that to him," thank you for proving my point.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1