Select Page
Poker Forum
Over 1,291,000 Posts!
Poker ForumFTR Community

Trump is the WWE and Mueller is The Undertaker

Page 2 of 25 FirstFirst 123412 ... LastLast
Results 76 to 150 of 1812
  1. #76
    Jack Sawyer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    7,667
    Location
    Jack-high straight flush motherfucker
    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    Deflect, dodge, deny, deceive, demagogue

    Nice playbook
    Oh you can do alliterations! That's great
    My dream... is to fly... over the rainbow... so high...


    Cogito ergo sum

    VHS is like a book? and a book is like a stack of kindles.
    Hey, I'm in a movie!
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fYdwe3ArFWA
  2. #77
    My IQ is over 6000. When I was born, they injected concentrated Einstein brain matter into my brain, along with some cesium. Don't tell anyone though, I'm only here at FTR to lend credit to my story that I'm an idiot who talks out of my arse.

    I have to play down my chess skills so I don't stand out. It pains me to do it. I could be world champion.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  3. #78
    Back on topic...

    The jurors in the Manafort trial have asked for clarification on the meaning of "reasonable doubt".

    Think Mueller is happy about that?
  4. #79
    MadMojoMonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    10,322
    Location
    St Louis, MO
    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    Dude...you're a scientist. You should know that the words "pre-conceived notions" and "facts" are not interchangeable.
    Exactly.
    It doesn't matter who (if anyone) has the facts because you undercut both your own and their ability to learn from the conversation by acting in such a way as to put everyone on maximum defense.

    You may have potential to be more than an angry clown, but you're squandering it for all we can see, here.
  5. #80
    CoccoBill's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    2,504
    Location
    Finding my game
    You're assuming he wants to achieve something other than patching his fragile ego. Payback for all the years of being bullied.
  6. #81
    Let's just say that I do more than play with toys all day and leave it at that.
  7. #82
    MadMojoMonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    10,322
    Location
    St Louis, MO
    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    Let's just say that I do more than play with toys all day and leave it at that.
    Let's just say your bluff is pretty obvious, here.

    The notion that you're suddenly tongue-tied on any topic is a hard sell.
  8. #83
    Quote Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey View Post
    Let's just say your bluff is pretty obvious, here.

    The notion that you're suddenly tongue-tied on any topic is a hard sell.
    What am I supposedly bluffing about?

    I'm definitely not tongue-tied. This is me being nice.
  9. #84
    Now we know you're lying.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  10. #85
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    Now we know you're lying.
    Look folks. MMM did a pretty good job for over a year of presenting himself in a way that made me *think* he was actually a college professor, or teacher of some kind. I actually believed that he was responsible for the education of our next generation. I believed he was intelligent and qualified enough for someone in his field to say "Hey, you should teach this to other people".

    The fact that he presented that image suggests insecurity. His reaction when I found out the truth confirms insecurity. Now if you really want me to start tearing into this guy and hurt his feelings...I will. It won't be hard to crush someone who's life amounts to being a lab-bitch who rides the bus to work everyday. But like I said...I'm trying to be nice.

    @MMM congratulations on being satisfied with your job. But that probably means that it's meaningless. Entertaining entitled snowflakes isn't really moving the economy. And it should be noted that your recent diatribe about how great your job is failed to include ANY mention of anything challenging or difficult that you might face. So I hope you don't ever want a promotion, or a raise, or to be considered as a serious applicant for a *real* job. Because if all it takes to satisfy you are smiles....no one will ever ask you to do more than that.

    If you're curious, I manage financial planning and analysis for a company that does cargo and ground handling for airlines. We have over 100 contracts with various airlines. We have 50+ individually managed operations located in 21 cities all with their own individual Profit&Loss statements. We have 1400+ employees working for us, 2000+ during the peak season. It's all run by a group of about 4-6 people. There's a director, a sales person, an operations person, a finance person, and some regional managers. I'm the finance person.

    What I do might not be glamorous, but it supports 1400 families. And it's challenging. You have to predict revenue and expenditures for something like 5000 line items. And you have to be right. And if it's not right, you have to be able to explain why. And then you have to collaborate with operations, and the individual managers, to make the necessary corrections to make the numbers right again. Sometimes you have to get creative, and that takes a deep understanding of the workings of the operation and all the players involved.

    Every time I leave work on Friday, I feel better and smarter and more skilled than I did the previous Monday. Hard to get that feeling if all you're doing is blowing up soda cans.

    But yes, I stare at numbers alot, and I talk to a lot of idiots. I often make people unhappy. And it's kind of a drag. But it's part of the job, and it doesn't affect the pride I have in it.

    Outside of that I'm responsible for the care and upbringing of three people. Have you ever sat with a 7 year old and tried to teach them fractions? Have you ever experienced the elation when the light-bulb goes off and they "get it". I teach people too. Just fewer people. But I teach them alot more things. Do you know how satisfying it is to know that you've passed on knowledge that has given them an advantage over their peers, and set them on an extremely positive trajectory in life? Do you realize that its 10x more satisfying because the person you've taught is someone you care for and love deeply? No, probably not. You make entitled snowflakes say "ooooh". Nice gig.

    Want me to keep pulling off scabs here? Or can I go back to being nice?

    if you want me to continue, I'll need some more material. So @MMM, when was the last time your penis was inside a woman? How much did she weigh?
    Last edited by BananaStand; 08-18-2018 at 10:12 AM.
  11. #86
    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    if all it takes to satisfy you are smiles....no one will ever ask you to do more than that.
    @MMM, all BS aside.....this is serious advice.
  12. #87
    Wow, how does that lame joke about banana not being nice get such a huge reply?
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  13. #88
    The fact that he presented that image suggests insecurity.
    Do you really think this? I don't. I *assumed* he was a lecturer, until I discovered otherwise, but that's because it's the natural thing to assume when you know someone is working at a college teaching physics. And yes he "teaches". I'm cool with the use of that word, if he's explaining his set-up and experiments with students.

    I got a sense that he's happy with the work he does. That isn't insecurity, quite the opposite in fact.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  14. #89
    Hey BStand did I hear you right a while back when you said you spend most of your time at work fucking off (arguing on the intertubes) but they like having you because you know how to do some really important things in 20 minutes that others don't?
  15. #90
    something like that. Sometimes. There are functions of my job that have me working 6 ten hour days a week for two or three months. There are other times where I might put in 15 hours of actual work in a week.

    my job is complex. And any leisure time I find within it is a function of my own ability to automate tasks and find efficiencies in my methods.

    a lower IQ person would find my job more demanding than I find it.

    High IQ + MS Excel = Finance is easy

    If youre trying to segue into *unused potential*. Youre probably right. I could have a much more demanding career by now had I played my cards differently.

    There are reasons for that, I dont claim not to be a flawed person. What exactly is your point?
  16. #91
    Now if you really want me to start tearing into this guy
    I knew it had to be someone else's idea to do that.


    and hurt his feelings
    I'm not sure that your sexual fantasies are relevant here, but ok.


    If you're curious
    Absolutely, I've been wanting to ask you ever since you got here. Please tell us all about it. Use as many words as you can.


    I manage financial planning and analysis for a company that does cargo and ground handling for airlines. You have to predict revenue and expenditures for something like 5000 line items.

    What I do might not be glamorous,
    It sounds totally glamorous.


    but it supports 1400 families.
    Wow that's so magnanimous of you. I hate to imagine all those 1400 people sitting in a mudhole somewhere if it weren't for you personally providing them with work.


    I stare at numbers alot
    So basically your job is to look at Excel files? We have a financial manager where I work too and that's what they do a lot.


    You have to predict revenue and expenditures for something like 5000 line items.
    So basically you have to gather information, weigh it and use your experience to make a judgment? Then you have to make sure you press the right buttons in Excel? This really does sound like a fascinating job.


    And you have to be right.
    No fucking way. In most jobs you're never expected to be right.


    And if it's not right, you have to be able to explain why that's someone else's fault and not yours.
    fixed your typo here.




    I often make people unhappy.
    So it's not all bad then.


    Every time I leave work on Friday, I feel better and smarter and more skilled than I did the previous Monday.
    That's good. Most people feel worse and stupider and less skilled at the end of a work week.


    Have you ever experienced the elation when the light-bulb goes off and they "get it".
    This is quite possibly the most poignant question I've ever heard anyone ask an educator.
  17. #92
    id say your use of thebword "educator" is dubious here
  18. #93
    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    id say your use of thebword "educator" is dubious here
    Pretty limp.
  19. #94
    So far it seems to me that mojo has the best job here. I mean we can wave dicks all we like, but like fuck would I want banana's job.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  20. #95
    I am actually kind of curious what Oskar and Jack do for a living, now that it's come up. I don't think they've ever mentioned their jobs before.
  21. #96
    they turn tricks
  22. #97
    Been watching this self-defense guy channel. There's some good ones.

    This security guy is hilarious.

  23. #98
    Man, I would have shot this guy right away.

  24. #99
    oskar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    6,914
    Location
    in ur accounts... confiscating ur funz
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    they turn tricks
    not too far off
    The strengh of a hero is defined by the weakness of his villains.
  25. #100
  26. #101
    Manafort jury is asking "what happens if we can't come to a verdict"

    Think that's a good sign for prosecutors??

    Also, Cohen due to announce plea deal in less than 2 hours....stay tuned.
  27. #102
    What do you think McGahn was doing talking to Mueller for 30 hours? Do you think it was another 3D chess move to get Hillary to drop her guard before the SWAT team swoops in and drags her to jail?
  28. #103
    Quote Originally Posted by Poopadoop View Post
    What do you think McGahn was doing talking to Mueller for 30 hours?
    well, since McGahn didn't subsequently plead guilty to anything...I suspect they didn't talk about much. Buzz around this says that McGahn's account of things suggest that Mueller has no evidence of collusion, and has abandoned any possibility of making that charge. Instead, he's trying to make a case for obstruction....but that's a non-starter and everyone knows it.

    Do you think it was another 3D chess move to get Hillary to drop her guard before the SWAT team swoops in and drags her to jail?
    Hmmm, you can talk to wuf about that shit.
  29. #104
    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    well, since McGahn didn't subsequently plead guilty to anything...I suspect they didn't talk about much. Buzz around this says that McGahn's account of things suggest that Mueller has no evidence of collusion, and has abandoned any possibility of making that charge. Instead, he's trying to make a case for obstruction....but that's a non-starter and everyone knows it.
    Strangely enough I've heard a different buzz. McGahn knows Trump is doing greasy shit in the WH and wants to come clean with Mueller so he doesn't go down with him the way Dean went down with Nixon.

    Also, I thought collusion wasn't a crime. You'd think Mueller would know that too, being a law type guy and all. Seems strange he'd be trying to find evidence of a non-crime.
  30. #105
    Quote Originally Posted by Poopadoop View Post
    Also, I thought collusion wasn't a crime. You'd think Mueller would know that too, being a law type guy and all. Seems strange he'd be trying to find evidence of a non-crime.
    Collusion would still be grounds for a recommendation of impeachment. DUH
  31. #106
    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    Collusion would still be grounds for a recommendation of impeachment. DUH
    According to whom? DUH
  32. #107
    Quote Originally Posted by Poopadoop View Post
    According to whom? DUH
    The constitution...DUH

    Have you really been this clueless throughout this entire investigation? Seriously dude???

    The president CAN'T be charged with a crime. The only thing that was EVER on the table was a recommendation of impeachment.
    Last edited by BananaStand; 08-21-2018 at 03:41 PM.
  33. #108
    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    Also, Cohen due to announce plea deal in less than 2 hours....stay tuned.
    Latest update from CNN says Cohen's deal does NOT include any agreement to cooperate with the government in other matters. He's going to plead guilty, go to jail for 3 or 4 years, and we'll all forget he existed within 3 months from now.
  34. #109
    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    The constitution...DUH

    Have you really been this clueless throughout this entire investigation? Seriously dude???

    The president CAN'T be charged with a crime. The only thing that was EVER on the table was a recommendation of impeachment.
    Impeachment requires treason, bribery, or high crimes and misdemeanors. I'm not a lawyer but pretty sure all of those are crimes. I guess you could argue 'misdemeanor' is open to interpretation if you wanna pick nits, but whatever.

    Anyways, all indicators are your boy is going to get smoked in the midterms and then spend two or less more years tweeting about witch hunts until he either gets impeached or tossed out on his fat orange ass by the electorate. There's no happy ending for Trumpy Boy. It sure is fun watching him lose his shit though. Hope he doesn't have a stroke.
  35. #110
    Quote Originally Posted by Poopadoop View Post
    Impeachment requires treason, bribery, or high crimes and misdemeanors.
    *sigh*. SMH

    I'm not a lawyer
    Then maybe just shut the fuck up
  36. #111
    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    *sigh*. SMH


    Then maybe just shut the fuck up
    Why? Is there a requirement to be a lawyer to have an opinion on something?

    Maybe just shut the fuck up yourself.
  37. #112
    .

    Article II § 4 of the Constitution provides as follows:

    "The President, Vice President and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors."
  38. #113
    No one is disputing what the constitution says....what's your point?

    You seem to be claiming that the president can't be impeached unless he's convicted of a crime. That's your opinion.

    you seem to be missing the fact that the president of the united states CAN NOT be charged with a crime. That's a fact.

    now tell me how your opinion reconciles with facts.
  39. #114
    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    No one is disputing what the constitution says....what's your point?

    You seem to be claiming that the president can't be impeached unless he's convicted of a crime. That's your opinion.

    you seem to be missing the fact that the president of the united states CAN NOT be charged with a crime. That's a fact.

    now tell me how your opinion reconciles with facts.
    Wow that's a reductio ad bananum Fox News would be proud of. Maybe you can get a job as Guiliani's assistant or something.

    So, the constitution says he has to have committed a crime to be impeached, but he can't get impeached because he can't be conviced of a crime?

    I know you're not too bright, but do you remember when Clinton was impeached? That was for perjury and obst. of justice- did you hear about that? Those are both actual crimes, right? Do you want me to go dig out the statute on them too for you?
  40. #115
    Do you even remember what this convo started out about? You claimed he could still be impeached for collusion even though it wasn't a crime. It had nothing to do with being convicted.

    According to your logic, he can only be impeached if he doesn't commit a crime.

    Please, use your fukcing head.
  41. #116
    Quote Originally Posted by Poopadoop View Post
    So, the constitution says he has to have committed a crime to be impeached,
    No it doesn't.

    but he can't get impeached because he can't be conviced of a crime?
    Also false

    I know you're not too bright, but do you remember when Clinton was impeached? That was for perjury and obst. of justice- did you hear about that? Those are both actual crimes, right? Do you want me to go dig out the statute on them too for you?
    Was Clinton charged, criminally, with a crime? Was there an indictment? Did he have to go to court and plead guilty or not guilty? Did anything like that happen?

    If those are both actual crimes....how is it that Clinton wasn't ever charged? Never tried? Never convicted? Never sentenced? But still impeached?
  42. #117
    Quote Originally Posted by Poopadoop View Post
    Do you even remember what this convo started out about?
    Yes, short term memory is part of a high-IQ

    You claimed he could still be impeached for collusion even though it wasn't a crime
    Yeah. And it's still a true statement.

    It had nothing to do with being convicted.
    Also true, just like Clinton was never convicted.

    According to your logic, he can only be impeached if he doesn't commit a crime.
    No. He CAN'T commit a crime. But he CAN be impeached. I'm not sure why that's hard to understand, since you seem to vividly remember it happening once before

    Please, use your fukcing head.
    Try asking Oskar if you can borrow some of his IQ's
  43. #118
    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    No it doesn't.


    Also false


    Was Clinton charged, criminally, with a crime? Was there an indictment? Did he have to go to court and plead guilty or not guilty? Did anything like that happen?

    If those are both actual crimes....how is it that Clinton wasn't ever charged? Never tried? Never convicted? Never sentenced? But still impeached?

    Are you really this dumb?

    Clinton was impeached by the House but it failed in the Senate.

    How does that make perjury and obs. of just. not crimes?

    No seriously, are you this dumb?
  44. #119
    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post

    No. He CAN'T commit a crime.
    lol
  45. #120
    I don't have time to explain the constitution to you, but it's clear that all those criteria used for impeachment are crimes, and that Clinton was impeached based on the House's vote that he'd committed the stated crimes of perjury and obst. of justice (those are crimes, trust me). Whether or not those crimes were ever tried in a criminal court is irrelevant; they're still obviously crimes.
  46. #121
    I really don't see what you're missing.

    Clinton committed perjury and obstructed justice. True. He was never charged with a crime as a result of those things. Also true.

    Articles of impeachment were recommended because of those acts. The fact that they are crimes is irrelevant. You dont' have to violate an actual statute to be guilty of "high crimes and misdemeanors"

    Which is why it doesn't matter whether or not collusion is a crime. For the purposes of impeachment, the distinction is irrelevant. Which is why Mueller would be totally justified, and wholly within the scope of his charge, to investigate allegations of collusion.

    If we rewind this tantrum, wasn't that your point in the beginning? That Mueller would have been stupid to pursue evidence of a non-crime? Why would that be stupid? It's still sufficient grounds to recommend impeachment. DUH
  47. #122
    Collusion isn't a crime, but treason is. In fact it's one of things directly mentioned in the constitution.

    Obviously I was mocking your side who always say 'b-b-but collusion isn't a crime!'. Well actually it is, when it's done with the purpose of conspiring with a foreign power to influence an election. It's then high treason. Like, walk the plank time.

    Now, your argument, because you watch a lot of Fox News, is that there's no evidence of collusion. As if the first thing any good prosecutor does when he obtains evidence is go to the press with it. Mueller has had ZERO leaks in 2+ years. So you don't know what evidence he does or doesn't have; all you know is who he's been talking to, which is pretty much everyone around Trump and his campaign. Even fucking Omarosa's been interviewed by Mueller.

    If I were Trump I'd be a bit uneasy with that. I'd also wonder why the WH Counsel spent 30 hours talking to Mueller. Whatever could they be discussing? How it's all a witch hunt? lol.
  48. #123
    Now ask yourself, what would an innocent person do? Would they channel their inner Richard Nixon, holler and scream about 'witch hunts' and try their best to fire everyone involved? Would they get their buddies to try to impeach Rosenstein and smear the DOJ in general? Why if he's so innocent all this drama? Why not just cooperate and say 'hey i did nothing wrong, you won't find anything, look all you want. it was Manafort laundering money for Russians. Here's my tax returns, see? I don't have anything to do with Russia, just like I said.'

    The guilty always scream the loudest. Always.
  49. #124
    What are you bickering about in here? Someone sum it up in something like four words.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  50. #125
    Quote Originally Posted by Poopadoop View Post
    Collusion isn't a crime, but treason is. In fact it's one of things directly mentioned in the constitution.
    OMFG get off your demagogue soapbox. No one is even talking about treason.

    Obviously I was mocking your side who always say 'b-b-but collusion isn't a crime!'. Well actually it is, when it's done with the purpose of conspiring with a foreign power to influence an election. It's then high treason. Like, walk the plank time.
    I thought you weren't a lawyer?? I challenge you to go find a lawyer, and ask what the actual definition of treason is.

    Now, your argument, because you watch a lot of Fox News, is that there's no evidence of collusion.
    That's my argument because it's self-evidently true.

    As if the first thing any good prosecutor does when he obtains evidence is go to the press with it.
    It's not possible for any evidence to exist. This can be easily deduced logically if your IQ is high enough. If the allegations were true, then other things would be true. Like A) Paul Manafort wouldn't have just been found guilty on 8 counts of tax fraud. B) Carter Page's net worth would be twice what Trump's is C) Russian soldiers wouldn't be dead at the hands of US missiles. D) The Ukraine would not be armed. And I could go on....

    Mueller has had ZERO leaks in 2+ years
    FALSE. Just plain wrong. Like immensely, embarrassingly wrong.

    So you don't know what evidence he does or doesn't have
    If he had evidence, he wouldn't be begging Trump to walk into a perjury trap.

    all you know is who he's been talking to, which is pretty much everyone around Trump and his campaign. Even fucking Omarosa's been interviewed by Mueller.
    Do any of those people seem worried?

    If I were Trump I'd be a bit uneasy with that.
    And yet if he complained at all you'd excoriate him for being a weak crybaby. God you're a piece of work!

    I'd also wonder why the WH Counsel spent 30 hours talking to Mueller. Whatever could they be discussing? How it's all a witch hunt? lol.
    Yeah, 2 years at this and he spent a little over 1 day with a guy.....lol, he must have found the smoking gun!!

    A dozen people have been working full time for almost two years. That's probably 40,000 man hours. And you think the fact that they spent 30 of those hours on one witness is significant?

    Your Trump Derangement Syndrome is flaring up again. Go take your common-sense suppository
  51. #126
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    What are you bickering about in here? Someone sum it up in something like four words.
    Hillary lost; Democrat tantrum
  52. #127
    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    Hillary lost; Democrat tantrum
    Trump on way out.
  53. #128
    Quote Originally Posted by poop
    Collusion isn't a crime, but treason is. In fact it's one of things directly mentioned in the constitution.
    Do you know what treason actually is? In America, it's the act of waging war on one's own country, or aiding the enemy of America in war. It doesn't mean "an act that can subjectively be viewed as a betrayal of American interests".
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  54. #129
    Quote Originally Posted by Poopadoop View Post
    Trump on way out.
    Nice dream; not real.
  55. #130
    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    OMFG get off your demagogue soapbox. No one is even talking about treason.
    If they are talking about collusion, they are talking about treason. Just cause you don't like it doesn't mean it's not true.


    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    I thought you weren't a lawyer?? I challenge you to go find a lawyer, and ask what the actual definition of treason is.
    I think you need to go talk to a lawyer. You remind me of someone I once dealt with who thought they could make up their own laws. They lost.




    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    That's my argument because it's self-evidently true.
    What's self evident about it? That Mueller hasn't shown you personally his evidence? lol keep living the dream buddy.


    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    It's not possible for any evidence to exist. This can be easily deduced logically if your IQ is high enough. If the allegations were true, then other things would be true. Like A) Paul Manafort wouldn't have just been found guilty on 8 counts of tax fraud. B) Carter Page's net worth would be twice what Trump's is C) Russian soldiers wouldn't be dead at the hands of US missiles. D) The Ukraine would not be armed. And I could go on....
    I'm sure you could go on and on spewing nonsense that has nothing to do with evidence indefinitely, yes.


    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    If he had evidence, he wouldn't be begging Trump to walk into a perjury trap.
    Trump's lawyers (I shoud say spin doctors, 'cause real lawyers don't go on the news every day and talk about their client's case) are the ones who keep talking about a 'perjury trap'. The strategy is not hard to see for someone with an IQ over 40. Pretend Trump wants to talk to Mueller. Pretend his lawyers are keeping him from doing so, because it's 'a trick'. Lol.

    Reality: Trump probably does want to talk to Mueller, because he really is that stupid. Guiliani et al are probably holding onto all four of his arms and legs so he doesn't. In the end he shouldn't if he doesn't have to. The guy is fundamentally incapable of telling the truth. He couldn't even get through an interview with Lester Holt without incriminating himself lol.



    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    Do any of those people seem worried?
    Is that relevant evidence to something? If someone looks worried? Fuck you should be a lawyer.


    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    And yet if he complained at all you'd excoriate him for being a weak crybaby. God you're a piece of work!
    Where have you been? He's been screaming about it for the last two days. And no I don't say he's a crybaby (when did i say that?). I say he's a moron and a conman.


    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    Yeah, 2 years at this and he spent a little over 1 day with a guy.....lol, he must have found the smoking gun!!

    A dozen people have been working full time for almost two years. That's probably 40,000 man hours. And you think the fact that they spent 30 of those hours on one witness is significant?

    A lot of things can be talked about in 30 hours. Just because they didn't spend the whole 2 years talking to one person doesn't mean anything.



    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    Your Trump Derangement Syndrome is flaring up again. Go take your common-sense suppository
    Oh, you so funny! If only there was a suppository that made everyone watch and believe Fox News, then life would be grand for you Trumptards.
  56. #131
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    Do you know what treason actually is? In America, it's the act of waging war on one's own country, or aiding the enemy of America in war. It doesn't mean "an act that can subjectively be viewed as a betrayal of American interests".
    Ok, it's certainly a crime though, whether it's 'high treason' (which doesn't have to involve war) or whatever. It's like if you as an American pass secrets to Russia, it's a form of treason really. It may have a different name but it's definitely a serious crime.

    And no, it's not legal to accept help from a hostile nation to affect your own country's election just because there isn't a war going on at the time.
  57. #132
    Quote Originally Posted by poop
    If they are talking about collusion, they are talking about treason. Just cause you don't like it doesn't mean it's not true.
    Collusion isn't treason, not unless the people you're colluding with are enemies at war. Are America at war with Russia?

    I think you need to go talk to a lawyer. You remind me of someone I once dealt with who thought they could make up their own laws. They lost.
    Who the fuck needs a lawyer? We live in the google age. There's a reason less than thirty people have been charged with treason in American history. That reason is it's actually a very hard crime to commit.

    Google what treason means in American law.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  58. #133
    Ok, it's certainly a crime though
    Colluding? I don't know if it is or isn't. I would imagine it would depend on the nature of the collusion, and do you suppose we're going to hear the turth from either side?
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  59. #134
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    Collusion isn't treason, not unless the people you're colluding with are enemies at war. Are America at war with Russia?



    Who the fuck needs a lawyer? We live in the google age. There's a reason less than thirty people have been charged with treason in American history. That reason is it's actually a very hard crime to commit.

    Google what treason means in American law.
    Like I said above, "you got me". It's called something else other than treason in the US, but it's still illegal.
  60. #135
    And no, it's not legal to accept help from a hostile nation to affect your own country's election just because there isn't a war going on at the time.
    Do you know this? Quote me the specific law that it breaks. I'm not saying you're wrong, it's just I haven't a fucking clue and I'm unconvinced you have a clue either.

    I know collusion is not treason, that took seconds of googling.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  61. #136
    Quote Originally Posted by Poopadoop View Post
    Like I said above, "you got me". It's called something else other than treason in the US, but it's still illegal.
    There's a bit of cross posting, I would have amended my post if I saw your reply.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  62. #137
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    Colluding? I don't know if it is or isn't. I would imagine it would depend on the nature of the collusion, and do you suppose we're going to hear the turth from either side?
    We're certainly never going to hear the truth from anyone who's guilty if that's what you mean.

    And yes, accepting foreign aid in an election is definitely illegal. You can't take money from the UK gov't to run the R campaign in the US, for example. Nor can you take it if the UK gov't offers you pics of Trump being peed on in the Moscow Hilton.
  63. #138
    Ok, so let's assume that the Trump administration are guilty of taking money off Russian sources to fund their election.

    How does that compare to taking money off Gadaffi for the same purpose? Because I'd love to know how you feel about Blair, Macron and Obama taking his money, and doing their best to keep it quiet. And by "their best", I mean exactly what you think I mean.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  64. #139
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    Ok, so let's assume that the Trump administration are guilty of taking money off Russian sources to fund their election.

    How does that compare to taking money off Gadaffi for the same purpose? Because I'd love to know how you feel about Blair, Macron and Obama taking his money, and doing their best to keep it quiet. And by "their best", I mean exactly what you think I mean.

    If they did it, they all broke the law afaik and should be (or have been) tossed out.
  65. #140
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    Ok, so let's assume that the Trump administration are guilty of taking money off Russian sources to fund their election.
    Well the clearest evidence to date wasn't about accepting money. Look at the Don Jr. emails - he's talking to a Russian about getting dirt on their opponent. Then he's having a meeting in Trump Tower with reps. of Russian gov't. How much more obvious can it be? The only question is whether DJT knew about it or not (really the question is if it can be proved, cause obv. he's gonna know what his kid is doing).
  66. #141
    Quote Originally Posted by Poopadoop View Post
    If they did it, they all broke the law afaik and should be (or have been) tossed out.
    My point is, you're being naive if you think that only "they" are doing it, with "them" being your political opponents. Financial backing from shady sources is what modern politics is built on.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  67. #142
    Quote Originally Posted by Poopadoop View Post
    Well the clearest evidence to date wasn't about accepting money. Look at the Don Jr. emails - he's talking to a Russian about getting dirt on their opponent. Then he's having a meeting in Trump Tower with reps. of Russian gov't. How much more obvious can it be? The only question is whether DJT knew about it or not (really the question is if it can be proved, cause obv. he's gonna know what his kid is doing).
    "getting dirt"

    In the case of Hillary, the dirt in question was her corruption. It's astonishing really that people are more bothered about the fact Americans are working with Russians to expose this, than they are at the content of the leaks.

    If they're faking dirt, that's different, and amounts to fraud at the very least. I'm not arguing that's not criminal.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  68. #143
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    My point is, you're being naive if you think that only "they" are doing it, with "them" being your political opponents. Financial backing from shady sources is what modern politics is built on.
    I never said only people I dislike the most break the law. All politicians are scumbags until proven otherwise imo - it's the nature of the game. Doesn't mean they should get away with it though.
  69. #144
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    "getting dirt"

    In the case of Hillary, the dirt in question was her corruption. It's astonishing really that people are more bothered about the fact Americans are working with Russians to expose this, than they are at the content of the leaks.

    If they're faking dirt, that's different, and amounts to fraud at the very least. I'm not arguing that's criminal.
    I thought the dirt was her 30k emails. Not sure what that has to do with corruption. More to do with sloppy security in letting them get hacked if you ask me.

    What evidence of her corruption did the Russians uncover?
  70. #145
    Quote Originally Posted by Poopadoop View Post
    I never said only people I dislike the most break the law. All politicians are scumbags until proven otherwise imo - it's the nature of the game. Doesn't mean they should get away with it though.
    Fair enough, but if this kind of corruption is a problem for you, I don't see how you can support any party.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  71. #146
    Quote Originally Posted by Poopadoop View Post
    I thought the dirt was her 30k emails. Not sure what that has to do with corruption. More to do with sloppy security in letting them get hacked if you ask me.

    What evidence of her corruption did the Russians uncover?
    I can't remember, I lost interest in it long ago.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  72. #147
    In the end, I probably wouldn't want to see Trump thrown out just cause his kid is an idiot at covering his tracks. But I suspect there's more to the story than that; there's a real belief among some people that Trump is compromised by Putin somehow, be it money laundering or sex or some other greasy thing he doesn't want coming out. He's got something like 57 business associates in Russia, including members of organised crime. So if Al Capone ran for and won the Presidency would you just say 'it's ok at least he's not a democrat' Come on.

    There's also the fact that Trump has really no idea what he's doing as President. And sorry, but if you can't see that after 2 years well I don't know what to tell you.
  73. #148
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    Fair enough, but if this kind of corruption is a problem for you, I don't see how you can support any party.
    haha, I don't. I support the least objectionable ones I can find.
  74. #149
    here's a real belief among some people that Trump is compromised by Putin somehow
    Yeah I mean there's a real belief among some people that 9/11 was an inside job. Why are one group of people paranoid conspiracy nuts, while the other are not?

    There's also the fact that Trump has really no idea what he's doing as President. And sorry, but if you can't see that after 2 years well I don't know what to tell you.
    I've seen failure after failure in USA. This one doesn't seem so bad. I mean, I dunno if you noticed, but things have calmed down somewhat around the world. Maybe he's just more discreet with his destruction of other countries.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  75. #150
    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    Manafort jury is asking "what happens if we can't come to a verdict"

    Think that's a good sign for prosecutors??

    8 guilty verdicts and 10 mistrial verdicts. Mueller must be crying all over his leather briefcase.



    Edit: Well I guess those other 10 verdicts are superfluous really. Manafort's already up to > 60 years in prison.
    Last edited by Poopadoop; 08-21-2018 at 06:14 PM.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •