Comments by "Hallands Menved" (@Hallands.) on "VICE News" channel.

  1. Slam dunk, terrible reporter! 😂😂😂
    13
  2. 1. The alleged whistleblower has no first hand knowledge of any conversations Trump had. 2. Since he wasn't employed as an agent at the time, he doesn't get whistleblower privileges. 3. This is just a last ditch attempt to remove or slow down the president before elections – seeing how none of the democrat candidates stand a chance debating Trump in the finals. I think someone mislead Pelosi here. She's too smart to walk into such a deadfall voluntarily.
    4
  3. Well, the combined areas on fire are significantly smaller that previously seen in Australia (where wildlife and fauna are notoriously adapted to and even dependent on wildfires) so the current firenados and whatnot certainly can't be record breaking. So although the explanations may seem interesting, the implied drama is hysterically overdone.
    3
  4. Yeah, huge difference, naturally. Bill Clinton, was foolish enough to perjure himself on the Lewinsky matter, but the Starr case was even more disproportionate than the Mueller case in costs as well as in inappropriate leaking. Bill was in my view rightly acquitted, but on his trial there were at least some real meat on the bones – hugely worsened by Bill's own perjury. In Trump's case Mueller found nothing and Schiff had no grounds for impeachment. So of course the reactions are very different... I went back and refreshed the impeachment of Bill Clinton. It gave me the impression that the democrats, among other motives, were also out for payback and used the same sleazy tactics that Ken Star had applied. But they never stood a chance. They abused entrusted powers too much, lied and exaggerated too much – and their obedient MSM made it worse by being incredibly partisan.
    2
  5. Skyrocketing? In the retirement housings?
    2
  6. The same "scientists" who predicted that the Maldives would be submerged in 2019? What this ridiculous nonsense shows is not the effect of climate change! It's the extreme alarmists reckless projections based on faulty climate models.
    2
  7. Scratching you beard, picking your nose and burping might not be the best way to seem clever?
    1
  8. DonutWarLord Sorry, can't say, but it'll bear up. It shouldn't bother you, though, seeing how the floundering democrats are trying to build an impeachment on hearsay – after the Russia fairytale and the Mueller inwurstagumption crashed and burned – as everyone with a little sense knew they would.
    1
  9. Phil Gawthrop Name one!
    1
  10. Metal Gear Apparently so... But unfortunately Avenatti seems to be away on holidays in the shade...
    1
  11. leicanoct Marriage to whom?
    1
  12. Sean Profit No, I didn't edit it out, only removed the superfluous repetition at the end. And I disagree, of course: Insofar as the essentials are concerned, Mueller found nothing. It's also not correct that he had a dual purpose, as clearly evidenced by his total lack of investigation into the Greek connection, the attempted entrapment, the FISA fraud and the very fact that Steele actually did "collude" with Russian contacts – and was paid to do so by Hillary. No! Mueller was on a Witchhunt and produced nothing. Entrapment was attempted and may have repercussions in court yet. Neither Hillary nor Comey are in the clear, despite the protection against FOIA attempted by even the present DOJ – because Judicial Watch was granted discovery on Hillary in court. The FISC was exposed for being just as dangerous as many senators feared and may be abolished all together – oh and Brennan and Clapper aren't home safe, either. The Russia fairytale was so ridiculously overblown and speculative – and it's in the report, too: No influence was deemed to have succeed in influencing the election, period! All the rest of this ill advised, sordid affair is idle, partisan noises of no consequence. But the fraudulent impeachment may have dire political consequences for Schiff, Nadler, Schumer and Pelosi – and good riddance if it does...
    1
  13. Sean Profit You're very long winded and formalistic. This seems to preclude you from getting the essence of things – in this case both about the sham processes attempted against Trump and of what I said. Had I wanted to deny that the report came in two parts, I would likely have said so. You're welcome to go back and read what I actually said and try to figure out why I said it. But you're not on safe ground assuming that you know anything of importance about this entire, three years long charade that I haven't already heard or read. So being that I deem you a bit rude and slow witted, you'll forgive me if I don't seem terribly interested in continuing this discussion? Bye...
    1
  14. Sean Profit No, deal, benvenutti! The report pretended to have a dual purpose, but had only one – as became all too clear when Mueller held his little, ill conceived eulogy on himself (without taking questions!) The sole purpose, camouflaged behind a formalistic superfluity of words and chapters, was to, at the very least, smear Trump – having failed to uncover anything noteworthy. The Russian interference was insufficiently documented, relying heavily on what was allegedly by the Intelligence Community. At the disastrous congressional hearing, Mueller revealed lack of even superficial knowledge of key foreign players. This showed everyone with a minimum of perception, that the Russia nonsense was a pretext, not a matter of true concern! That's it, all the rest is wishful thinking, incoherent nonsense (such as comes out of CNN every hour) and vindictive pettiness. When, in your estimate, did Mueller's team realize they wouldn't be able to make a case against Trump? Why, in your opinion, did Mueller continue so far beyond that point in time, that he had to be told to wrap it up by his supervisor?
    1
  15. This sounds really bad...
    1
  16. Christopher Maurer Have you tried looking up the last centuries of records? I recommend Tony Heller's channel on this subject vs climate alarmism...
    1
  17. Christopher Maurer You're not making sense. My statement was only about size, so you can't say "only right about size"... When the actual size is exaggerated, it's overdone. The hysteria to me comes from the way it's done. She could have just reported on the facts instead of using breathless hyperbola. And while human property and lives may be threatened more than previously, but I haven't checked, the increased population density would need to be taken into account, to give a comprehensive picture. Some find truth disturbing, but that's not my problem, but it's mindless nonsense to claim the current fires has more impact on fauna and wildlife than ever seen before. They're much smaller, so how could they disturb wildlife more? If not for my "disturbing" comment, you'd go on taking the climate alarmist nonsense at face value. Do you prefer to be mislead?
    1
  18. Christopher Maurer Oh, and yes, the firefighting capacity was woefully inadequate (again), but that's sloppy work by the elected politicians – and certainly nothing new – as you'll see for yourself, if you check the old newspaper archives...
    1
  19. Above All, United Do not project your immense stupidity onto me, punk!
    1
  20. Alabaster Pyrak Nope, because it's true! The MSM are dead rotten.
    1
  21. 😱😳😡😭
    1
  22. Sanders is a paid placeholder for Biden. Huge voter fraud incoming...
    1
  23. Ricardo Barahona ... as he (Sanders) was for Hillary. He never intended to win. Takes the payoff to buy more real estate. Could have buried Birdbrain in the debates on most any issue and when asked specifically why he didn't, said "Biden is an old friend". HUGE voter fraud incoming. Why would you believe such speculative interpretations by obviously fake news bringing blatantly feeble polls, anyway?
    1
  24. Ricardo Barahona His books! 😂😂😂 No, I don't think so... Same payoff as he took to not contest Hillary's nomination, only bigger this time. That is why he holding off relinquishing control over his constituencies, even though he's giving up. The rest of your nonsense doesn't require any answer.
    1
  25. spadaj He was very crude and seems emotionally stunted. You didn't miss anything worth mentioning...
    1
  26. "Threw himself another rally"?!? Maybe stick to the actual facts for a change?
    1
  27. Philosopher of Nonsense "All of the world's scientists"? I'm going to assume you a child for that type of sweeping statement. I know this: All the alarmists predictions since the fifties has failed spectacularly. This alone should tell anyone that their models are faulty.. Besides that, I actually do know a lot about many things and my judgment probably is far better than most scientists', because my predictions hold up.
    1
  28. I agree. Not keeping this promise is a grave error by Trump. I'm also disappointed. I thought he was actually working on providing the funds.
    1
  29. Not the least interested in the "story behind"! What have you found? – is what I want to know. And if you really feel threatened, why the hell are you showing your faces and publishing your voices before you're ready with the conclusions?
    1