Oh, I didn't realize you attended the protests themselves. You do any interviews? Just watch from afar? Which were you at specifically?
Oh, I didn't realize you attended the protests themselves. You do any interviews? Just watch from afar? Which were you at specifically?I watched the rioter commit the crime, I didn't see the elector forge a document, I don't even know if it was forgery.
If you walk up to me and piss on my leg, I'll know that you pissed on my leg. If you sneak into my house and piss on my trousers I won't know that you did it.
This is why some people are referred to as an "eye witness". The crime is verified by the people that watched it happen.
Oh, I didn't realize you attended the protests themselves. You do any interviews? Just watch from afar? Which were you at specifically?
I don't jump on band wagons. As often as not the final story is a lot different than the first run through.
Somehow you know that these shitheads have committed sedition, fraud, forgery, and certainly a host of other crimes. They might have. But I've only heard one of them respond, and he claimed they operated on the advice of legal counsel. I also haven't heard of an indictment or an arrest, which seems odd in the face what is presented as overwhelming evidence. Right now my conclusion is that there is a piece of the story missing, that opinion might change. If they did indeed forge documents to try and sway the election results they will need to be jailed. If they were operating within the limits of the law then they'll walk away free, and everyone who decided their guilt will scream about back door deals and protection.
This ain't my first rodeo.
Oh, I didn't realize you attended the protests themselves. You do any interviews? Just watch from afar? Which were you at specifically?
It always strikes me that the "You can't believe what you see on TV!" generation believes the craziest shit possible on the Internet. (and Tucker, too, frankly)You can believe everything you see on TV, and now the internet, isn't that what your parents told ya?
It always strikes me that the "You can't believe what you see on TV!" generation believes the craziest shit possible on the Internet. (and Tucker, too, frankly)
This is Trump playing to his greatest strengths. He's bad at politics and actually picking candidates so he keeps losing, which is bad for him as it makes him look weak.Trump is considering endorsing multiple rival candidates in the 2020 GOP primaries, because…he really doesn’t understand how this endorsement thing works. But it seems he’s figured out that if he endorses ALL the candidates, one of his picks is sure to win the nomination and he can take credit for it.
He’s really scared that he’ll become irrelevant if HIS candidates don’t win……so he’s found a way to make sure they do. Once a cheater, always a cheater.
Trump mulls endorsing multiple GOP candidates per mid-term race to increase chances that his picks win, Politico report says
The approach defies conventional political wisdom, but, per Politico, is seen by Trump as a way to get "two chances" at picking a winner.news.yahoo.com
Read an article this morning that trump and the republican party were waiting to endorse senate candidates (Virginia I think?)because each team wants to cultivate the impression they still have influence. Hint: if you have to wait to endorse until the winner is known, you don't have influence.This is Trump playing to his greatest strengths. He's bad at politics and actually picking candidates so he keeps losing, which is bad for him as it makes him look weak.
His strengths are that he has no principles, no compunction against lying, and no need to remain internally consistent. So instead of continuing to lose he'll just say he really liked whichever guys wins better all along.
What was I wrong about? Trump colluding with Russia? Haven't seen that conviction yet. Kyle Rittenhouse a murderer? I think we all know how that turned out. What about that evil kid with the maga hat that we all wanted jailed? Sandman? Did we ever find out how much CNN paid to settle that little mess?Wouldn't be wrong nearly every time cause you to reconsider your process?
I mean we obviously know you don't learn from experience, but I figured I'd ask.
Collusion is not a crime, but Trump indisputably colluded with Russia. Remember, they publicly confessed.What was I wrong about? Trump colluding with Russia? Haven't seen that conviction yet. Kyle Rittenhouse a murderer? I think we all know how that turned out. What about that evil kid with the maga hat that we all wanted jailed? Sandman? Did we ever find out how much CNN paid to settle that little mess?
We're changing the narrative here. Trump colluded with the Russians to get something done, to achieve a goal. It was either a legal or an illegal goal. Which was it? One is his job, the other is a crime.Collusion is not a crime, but Trump indisputably colluded with Russia. Remember, they publicly confessed.
That is not the narrative at all. As I posted to the other thread Trump collusion with the Russians to win the 2016 election is a proven fact. There can be no dispute of it - remember, THEY CONFESSED.We're changing the narrative here. Trump colluded with the Russians to get something done, to achieve a goal. It was either a legal or an illegal goal. Which was it? One is his job, the other is a crime.
Was it Trump's job as President to withhold military aid to Ukraine in order to pressure the Ukrainian government to tell lies about Trump's domestic political opponents? Seems kind of like, you know, fucking treason.We're changing the narrative here. Trump colluded with the Russians to get something done, to achieve a goal. It was either a legal or an illegal goal. Which was it? One is his job, the other is a crime.
This all seems like such a useless question to me. I think there's a genuine question as to if the president using US resources and foreign policy to his own personal advantage is a crime or not - if anything I think the answer is probably no.Was it Trump's job as President to withhold military aid to Ukraine in order to pressure the Ukrainian government to tell lies about Trump's domestic political opponents? Seems kind of like, you know, fucking treason.
This all seems like such a useless question to me. I think there's a genuine question as to if the president using US resources and foreign policy to his own personal advantage is a crime or not - if anything I think the answer is probably no.
But who gives a fuck? Anyone who does that should be removed from office immediately and never allowed to hold a position of public trust again. Every bad thing doesn't have to be a crime to warrant removal from office.
I haven't checked for awhile, is he still in congress? If so I can only assume someone that angry over a president lying in a civil suit must have been positively apoplectic at this sort of conduct. Is that correct?You sound like 1998’s version of Lindsay Graham talking all that sense!!
I know this will bounce on you like everything else, but, hey, you never know.I don't jump on band wagons. As often as not the final story is a lot different than the first run through.
Somehow you know that these shitheads have committed sedition, fraud, forgery, and certainly a host of other crimes. They might have. But I've only heard one of them respond, and he claimed they operated on the advice of legal counsel. I also haven't heard of an indictment or an arrest, which seems odd in the face what is presented as overwhelming evidence. Right now my conclusion is that there is a piece of the story missing, that opinion might change. If they did indeed forge documents to try and sway the election results they will need to be jailed. If they were operating within the limits of the law then they'll walk away free, and everyone who decided their guilt will scream about back door deals and protection.
This ain't my first rodeo.
They were deprogrammed after a world war that killed countless.
I know this will bounce on you like everything else, but, hey, you never know.
Arizona attorney general too busy kissing up to Trump to deal with fake elector referral
Rachel Maddow reports on the Arizona secretary of state's office referring the investigation of fake Trump electors to Attorney General Mark Brnovich, who has apparently done nothing with the case but has spent a lot of energy currying a Trump endorsement for his Senate run.www.msnbc.com
Interesting story. I noted the part where the feds are looking into it. That's good. If the AG is running cover for a criminal conspiracy he needs to be jailed as well as the people he's covering. Why would I have any issue with that?I know this will bounce on you like everything else, but, hey, you never know.
Arizona attorney general too busy kissing up to Trump to deal with fake elector referral
Rachel Maddow reports on the Arizona secretary of state's office referring the investigation of fake Trump electors to Attorney General Mark Brnovich, who has apparently done nothing with the case but has spent a lot of energy currying a Trump endorsement for his Senate run.www.msnbc.com
Collusion is not a crime, but Trump indisputably colluded with Russia. Remember, they publicly confessed.
This is correct - Mueller looked into this and what Don Jr. did was definitely a crime but the issue was that crime requires you to know it was illegal and they decided they couldn’t prove Don Jr. was smart enough to know it was illegal.Collusion is not a crime but illegally soliciting in kind campaign donations can be.
This is correct - Mueller looked into this and what Don Jr. did was definitely a crime but the issue was that crime requires you to know it was illegal and they decided they couldn’t prove Don Jr. was smart enough to know it was illegal.