Yup, you won the argument 'cause I got bored and moved on. gg
Printable View
Yup, you won the argument 'cause I got bored and moved on. gg
ok, so then we agree. Woodward's book is no more significant than Wolff's. If anything ,you could say it's LESS significant, because Wolff's made more sensational claims, and had direct non-anonymous quotes from Bannon.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
Thanks for your valuable input.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
So which do you think is worse:
This?
Attachment 1044
Or this?
Attachment 1045
I dont understand the question
neither seems particularly relavant to anything
Circumcised Penises look like mushrooms. Toad looks like a mushroom.
Trump's penis confirmed circumcised.
Next?
poop used the word "worse"
you havent helped clarify that at all.
as usual MMM, your contribution has 0 value
Once again, you don't get to decide what I'm talking about. I do.
My commentary is there to mock the entire premise that anything about Trump's penis is relevant, or even that anything which is in the news recently is in any way criticism.
Most non-Jewish male Americans have a circumcised penis. Every one of them looks kinda like Toad.
Who cares?
Are you joking? She's a paid off porn star talking about the penis of the guy people voted to be President of the United States.
Quote:
She describes Trump’s penis as “smaller than average” but “not freakishly small”.
“He knows he has an unusual penis,” Daniels writes. “It has a huge mushroom head. Like a toadstool …
“I lay there, annoyed that I was getting fucked by a guy with Yeti pubes and a dick like the mushroom character in Mario Kart ...
“It may have been the least impressive sex I’d ever had, but clearly, he didn’t share that opinion.”
Please, I implore you to tell me what could possibly be more newsworthy than that.
Well... I'm no expert on what penises look like, but I'm pretty much an expert on what mine looks like.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
Doesn't everyone's penis have a bleach-white tip with red spots on it, and cute little arms it waves around.
Doesn't everyone's penis occasionally exclaim "I'm the best!" but with a particular tonality that makes it sound like "I'm possessed!"
No?
Just me and Don?
I'm trying, but you've made such a strong point that I'm left speechless.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
Imagine if Hillary had an affair, and the guy was telling anyone who would listen that she has saggy tits and a smelly pussy.
Just imagine the autistic screaming.
Actually, that would be boring.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
Funny would be if Hillary had an affair with Ron Jeremy, paid him off through a shady lawyer, denied it, then trashed him on twitter. Then he wrote a book describing how she had one nipple that pointed up and one that pointed down, and a bush that went all the way to her navel. That would be funny.
You would have to imagine it 'cause that's not how people would react to your scenario; they just wouldn't care. But they would laugh at mine.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
You've got that backwardsQuote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
https://y.yarn.co/62820f57-bced-4b62...screenshot.jpg
Wake up. If that happened, Ron Jeremy would be dead.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
If you think critically about that....you'll realize it's probably true, and that's fucked up.
Funny how Trump was supposed to be the fascist dictator seeking genocide....yet, we're two years in and somehow porn stars still have first amendment rights.
So what if Hillary Rodham Clinton fucked John Holmes while Bill was watching their newborn child; paid off John Holmes to keep it quiet during the election through a shell company set up by her lawyer, who later pleaded guilty on multiple charges, implicating her as a co-conspirator with the only reason why she isn't being indicted being that she is the sitting president. And after her lawyer gets convicted the NDA gets lifted because the payment was ruled to be illegal, and John Holmes describes Hillary in a derogatory way in his book, your theory is that republicans would get upset about this?Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
Never mind that it's yet another story you made up in order to get upset about.
Is there anything real left that you are working yourself up about, or is literally everything you're raging about fiction?Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
The massive media double standard favoring the left exists and is real.Quote:
Originally Posted by oskar
Because you and the rest of his base elected a retarded person! One of the wettest from the position of water?! What the fuck do you want to get reported on? Literally half his camp has pleaded guilty to colluding with russians or lying under oath about their contacts with russians - meanwhile the whistleblower who reported on russian interference gets charged under the espionage act while the president himself needs to be shackled by his own base in order not to extradite US spies to russia, which he called a "great offer" and just yesterday - wants to release FBI files UNREDACTED which possibly would reveal the names of US informants, or at the very least sources and methods to russian intelligence. AT BEST he's just mentally retarded, at worst he's both mentally retarded and compromised by russia.
If you wanna have a serious discussion about this, you need to drop this mentally retarded rhetoric. First of all, "my base"...wut???? I'm a registered independent sir. Exactly who are you talking about?Quote:
Originally Posted by oskar
Second...if you're gonna keep beating the "Trump is stupid" drum....it's impossible to take you seriously. He's done WAY too many complex things to be dumb. He's not fucking dumb. Certainly nowhere near mentally retarded.
You're just too used to Presidents speaking only in rehearsed, pre-written speeches. The president using social media to make unrehearsed statements, via video, is unprecedented. That level of access, and humanization is something that some people LIKEQuote:
One of the wettest in relation to water?! What the fuck do you want to get reported on?
WHOA WHOA WHOA WHOA WHOAQuote:
Literally half his camp has pleaded guilty to colluding with russians
Hold on......
"Literally", "half his camp", "guilty to colluding". None of those statements are accurate. Not a single one.
I'm keeping score on this, and LITERALLY ZERO people have pled guilty to colluding with Russians.
That only sound bad when you say it in that extremely concise and vague way. If you explain the WHOLE circumstances around Flynn and Popadopolous....your argument falls to pieces.Quote:
or lying under oath about their contacts with russians
You can't just replace the word "criminal" with "whistleblower".Quote:
- meanwhile the whistleblower who reported on russian interference is gets charged under the espionage act
Besides, I feel like I've heard this story before when it was called "Snowden" or "Manning". Those happened before Trump. They were prosecuted too. That's what happens when you break the law. You don't get to escape prosecution just because you *think* you have a good reason for breaking the law. If you're gonna do something like that...then be prepared for the consequences. you don't get a pass just because you can win your case in the court of public opinion. Vigilantism is NOT OK. Period. You don't get to flip flop on that issue just because you don't like Trump!
MAKE UP YOUR MIND!!!! Either revealing that information is bad....or it isn't??? You're calling Reality Winner a "whistleblower", but Trump is retarded??Quote:
while the president himself needs to be shackled by his own base in order not to extradite US spies to russia, which he called a "great offer" and just yesterday - wants to release FBI files UNREDACTED which possibly would reveal the names of US informants, or at the very least sources and methods to russian intelligence.
Every time you say this, you sound like more of a loser.Quote:
AT BEST he's just mentally retarded
Oh..... Is that why he bombed Russian operations in Syria? He did all that because he's compromised by Russia???Quote:
, at worst he's both mentally retarded and compromised by russia
God....where do you even get this stuff??
I mean, let's say for a minute that I could believe that Putin let Trump do that to throw folks off and misdirect. there's no way I would believe that Putin agreed to let Trump sell arms to the Ukraine. Do you have a way to explain that?
I wanna know WHO exactly has pled guilty to colluding with Russians.
Names please? So far, all I've heard is that it's multiple people comprising "half" of Trump's camp.
Surely their names are a matter of public record, no?
Who are they?
^ btw, no answer...is still an answer.
one of two things is gonna happen here...
1) Oskar posts a list of names of people who pled guilty to treason, and were all employed at one time by the Trump campaign, and the population of that list will be equal to half the number of Trump campaign and administration staff. Then I will post an admission of erroneousness.
2) Oskar doesn't answer the question because he realizes there is no answer. And he just seethes silently, burning with cognitive dissonance, because he really wanted to believe the demagoguery.
If MMM is wondering why I'm here....it's to enjoy either of those two outcomes. Either I will learn something, or I will embarrass a demagogue.
Fucking delicious.
I mean....popadopolous pled guilty to misleading the FBI.....NOT colluding with Russia.
Now the question is....WHY did he mislead the FBI. The options are:
A) He was covering for treason
B) he was desperately trying not to torpedo his career
One of those calls for the death penalty, one demands a far milder punishment.....like 14 days in jail.
What was Popadopolous's sentence again????????????
The FBI agents who interviewed Flynn admit, on record, that they don't believe that Flynn was lying about about talking to the Russain Ambassador. they truly believe he just forgot....
It seems wildly implausible that the incoming National Security Adviser would not assume that his phone conversations with Ambassadors would be recorded. Therefore, Flynn was either forgetful, or desperately hopelessly stupid by denying the conversation. Which seems more plausible?
Flynn could spend 7 figures that he doesn't have defending himself, or he could take a slap on the wrist. His career is over either way...what would you do?
Flynn's son was in a shit-ton of trouble. Then Flynn pled guilty...then Flynn's son wasn't in trouble. Coincedence??
All of this information is verifiable fact.
Oskar....can you explain to me how you can consider these facts and then conclude "treasonous collusion" rather than "witch hunt"?
That's a serious question.......what FACTS are you weighing here?
I'm about to grab an international flight. By the time I land, I'd like Oskar to answer this question.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
Please read my above posts carefully, and try not to cite things that are easily refuted by the FACTS above. I fucking hate repeating myself.
"somehow" lol.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
If you're going to insist he's smart because he's done "complex" things "in the past" (like what, tying his own shoes?) then it will be impossible to take YOU seriously.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
Funny how you don't mention anyting "complex" he's doing now. I guess because watching hours of cable news a day isn't a "complex" task.
Face it, the guy is an idiot. His one skill is selling snake oil, and even that only works on about 1/3 people. Just 'cause you're in that group and you think you're smart (despite all the evidence on here to the contrary) doesn't mean he must be smart to have fooled you into voting for him.
If Trump is smart,then all those people like Tillerson, Cohn, Kelly, et al., who think he's a moron must be the stupid ones. Yeah, sorry, not going to fly.
Here's the kinda thing that you do.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
Get outraged by someone not toeing your party line, insult them, accuse them of having the facts horribly wrong, then insert your alternative facts based on what you got from Fox News, "facts" which are themselves horribly distorted.
And lol at the irony of you being registered as an "independent" voter. None of your arguments show any independent thought at all; they're all just repeating lines from the Fox News republican Trump propaganda machine.
Did I say something not-factual about flynn?
Are there alternative facts youd like to cite here?
can you explain how Flynns plea is incontrovertable evidence of a sinister treasonous plot to influence an election?
Heres what you do..
demagogue.....get confronted by facts....insult me.
classy
where is the independent thougt?????
Jesus christ...even monkey says im "knocking it out of the park" here.
Do you wanna discuss anything factual? or are you just gonna keep up this lame petty game where you insist everything related to trump is the worst case scenario
FYPQuote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
I'm not interested in debating the individual details of Flynn's case; I've heard both sides of the story already.
My point is you act as though "your" side of the story is the only side that counts, because it has the "facts". Yet what you pretend not to realize is that your side of the story comes from a propaganda machine that routinely lies and distorts the truth. So why you imagine someone would want to "debate" "facts" with you is beyond me. Hmm, do I wanna argue with someone who gets practically all their information from a propaganda vehicle for the R party? Hmm, no what's the point.
And you're still not clever enough to use a dictionary.
so your claim is that because the leftist propaganda machines arent saying these facts...then they must not be facts?
FIRST, you have no idea where im getting my news. I will tell you that Fox is not more than a third. CNN and NBC probably another 50%, and then the rest is a hodgepodge of everything else I see and hear.
You can go read a completely unspun rendition of things if you want. Flynns plea agreement is a matter of public record
Have you read it? I have.
Seems like any reasonable person trying to comment intelligently on this would make that their FIRST source of information.
Cmon man. Do I really have to explain how to think to you??
So can you tell me exactly what is propaganda?
Did the FBI agents say that they believe flynna was beinf truthful...or not? Seems like that would be an easy thing to check.
Was his son in trouble amd now isnt? was that made up by fox news?
Does it make sense to you that popadopolous was committing treason and only got 14 days in jail??
please, explain to me how this is all part of a sinister plot to coddle the soviets
Im open minded and willong to learn. Tell me what they wont tell me on Fox News.
I fucking dare you!!
You can't seriously think I get upset about the things I talk about on here? I am probably the least serious person here. I don't take myself seriously, I don't take anything seriously. I think it's a mental illness to be honest.Quote:
Originally Posted by oskar
But yeah, I don't get upset about things in the news. I was simply trying to imply that if the reverse happened, if someone said those kind of things about Hillary, even if she fucked a toy boy stripper, then she would be a massive victim and I'm in no doubt you'd be on her side.
Poop thinks this is funny. I have an immature sense of humour, but I'm still stuck around the age of 15, not 10. I find dwarf boxing funny, not mushroom dicks.
It's funny, for someone who only gets a small portion of their info from Fox, how you routinely post links to Fox here, and that I can often go on youtube and find your arguments reproduced nearly word-for-word by a Fox Host and/or pundit. It's actually like having Tucker Carlson or Rudy Guiliani come and post on FTR, but with more outrage and less clarity of expression.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
Lol, I just finished telling you I wasn't interested in discussing Flynn.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
See, most people hear "I'm not interested in X, I'm pointing something else out, Y" as "let's ignore X and discuss Y",not as "tell me everything you think you know about X".
But I guess it's not surprising your language comprehension problems match your language production problems.
You are most definitely neither of those things. That is either a blatant lie or you are seriously oblivious to who you actually are.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
why are we ignoring X?
what exactly is Y?
what is your point?
also, if more than 25% of the lonks I post are from Fox...Ill happily stand corrected and acknowledge my bias.
Go do the math and let me know what the score is
Why prove what I already know?Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
You want to count them, do it yourself.
Maybe you'll learn something with that open mind you claim to have.
Everyone including you can see that Oskar was exaggerating. Obviously Trump isn't really mentally retarded. Obviously it isn't true half his campaign team pled guilty to collusion. What made you think he was trying to accurately relate specific facts by those words?
Your response is to pretend to take those words seriously, act outraged, and respond by trying to explain in great detail why his obvious exaggerations aren't literally true. Well thank you Professor.
And the one thing he relates that is factually accurate, that Trump wants to make intelligence files public, meaning he's either "just" an idiot or an idiot who's compromised by Russia, you respond to with some attempt to twist his words. But mostly you just attack the exaggerations and hyperbole, like those are important things to decry.
That's my point. You've lost the plot.
he claimed that half his camp has pled guilty to colluding with russia.
if it were really three people, or five, or one less than half his camp, then I can forgive the hyperbole
but its ACTUALLY zero.
thats not hyperbole, its demagoguery
im not surprised you dont know the difference
Hasn't Manafort been found guilty of colluding with Russians in the Ukrain by a state (NJ?)?
Didn't he just plea to the feds, and an interesting point in that plea was that he was colluding with Russians in the Ukraine during the March - November period he was working on Trump's campaign?
Did I misunderstand that?
I see some articles online which say it's not collusion, but something else, but ... he was taking money from Russians in Ukraine and campaigning for them, right? Is that just not "collusion" specifically? I though collusion was a loose term which kinda means "working with."
wtf, if i try to edit my post on my phone it gets deleted.??.
well fuck im not gonna type that all again. ill wait til im back at a keyboard.
MMM youre wrong about manafort.
hes charged with money laundering and bank fraud
if he took money from russians its because he was EMPLOYED by them.
he just didnt wanna pay his taxes, and thats why he is in trouble
I can un-delete any posts, but I think you can un-delete your own posts.
Do you want that post back?
I'm not getting why being employed is necessarily distinct from collusion. Is there a legal definition of collusion that applies, here, and not the colloquial, broad definition I asserted earlier?
If a French college hired you to blow up soda cans ...are you colliding with the French?
Is that a crime?
colluding, not colliding.
not even gonna try am edit
lol nice analogy.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
Manafort was working as the campaign manager for Trump.
He's also getting paid by Russia to do shady shit.
The most generous interpretation is that Trump didn't vet his campaign manager appropriately. Which is serious enough. And the reason he didn't vet him is that he just "hires all the best people" intuitively. In other words, he talks to people for five minutes and decides he likes them and gives them an important job. That's another theme in Woodward's book btw.
The worst interpretation is that Trump was money laundering for Russian oligarchs and Manafort was "recommended" to him by same. That would seem at least consistent with Manafort's weak ass, stuttering denials that Trump had any business dealings with Russians.
But I'm sure you've seen this before.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=923SiDdLSic&t=79s
youre confusing the word "interpretation" with "wild unfounded batshit speculation"
You're confusing the words "batshit speculation" with "follow the money".Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
The funny part is there's plenty of evidence Trump was involved in money laundering for Russians that doesn't have to involve Manafort. But if even some of it does, and Manafort spills the beans to Mueller, it's
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tMF9H8p_y8o
You are literally saying: If this thing that hasn't happened would happen, then you would definitely react in the way I imagine you would! After I have pointed out that you do that like three times in the past two pages.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
Can we get just the tiniest amount of self reflection in here, please. What is the point of a speculation like that? How do you think this reflects on you?
Hmm... well. No I'm being pretty literal. I mean there's a spectrum I guess. You know how legally blind people might not be technically completely blind, but they are considered blind in the eyes of the law. I would consider Trump to be legally retarded. He might be just slightly above what would be considered mentally retarded, but for all intents and purposes, he might as well be. One of the dumbest from the standpoint of stupidity.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
WOW...
What do think Trumps IQ is?
If youre only measure of intelligence is "how well do you articulate on camera, unrehearsed?" then Im not sure what you think intelligence is
I can't answer this until I know what is meant by collusion.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
Are you using collusion by a legal definition? (If so, please share.) Or a more general usage that means, "working together?"
Probably not. Working with someone to create a physics demonstration for use in a classroom is widely regarded as a net positive for education.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
However, it is a high energy demo, which could catastrophically fail if safety is not paramount. IDK the French position on that kind of fun.
His current verbal IQ at least is definitely below average. No-one says 'wettest from the standpoint of water' if they have an average or higher IQ.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
Trump is basically the guy at the carnival convincing people to play the ring toss game. He doesn't need to be well-spoken and present intelligent arguments because smart people aren't his customers.
The biggest problem isn't just that he is an idiot who got to be president, although that isn't a good thing. The biggest problem is that he actually believes he's the smartest guy in the room on any topic that comes up, regardless of how little he actually knows about it. Foreign policy and trade are two items he's clearly been fucking up since he got started on them. Balancing the budget is another obvious one. Immigration is a worldwide embarrassment.
And, "zomg the stock market" and "zomg unemployment" are the consistent rejoinders. Let's see how the stock market and unemployment do once no-one will trade with the US 'cause of Trump's protectionism. let's see if those midwestern farmers going bankrupt still wanna play the ring toss game then.
Just use context clues.Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
When discussing current events in politics and world affairs in 2018, the term "Russian Collusion" refers specifically to efforts by Donald J Trump, either personally or through his presidential campaign, to make a quid pro quo arrangement with Vladimir Putin (or his agents) to materially affect the 2016 election in Trump's favor by publicizing hacked emails, and promoting specious journalistic content on social media.
That's one hypothesis. Another theory is that the Russians just did those things because they're dicks.
Manafort has not pled guilty to anything remotely close to that.
He may have been 'colluding with Russians' to launder money, but if the headline tomorrow read "Manafort busted for Russian Collusion!" that would be an epic miscarriage of journalism even though that statement is literally true.
yeah yeah, let's put you on camera in front of a worldwide audience with 9 seconds notice and see how smart you look. I doubt very much the 'on-camera' Trump is the same as the 'off-camera' Trump.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
Who are the smart people patronizing??Quote:
Trump is basically the guy at the carnival convincing people to play the ring toss game. He doesn't need to be well-spoken and present intelligent arguments because smart people aren't his customers.
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/politiqs/
Henry Ford was not very educated. Maybe not even a high school grad, but I might be wrong about that. A newspaper called him stupid and he sued. The attorney put Ford on the stand and peppered with general knowledge questions. Ford said something like "Dude, I can push a button on my desk and in five minutes have 10 experts, on any subject you care to name, in my office"Quote:
The biggest problem is that he actually believes he's the smartest guy in the room on any topic that comes up, regardless of how little he actually knows about it
The court sided with Ford.
Clearly? LOL, ok.Quote:
Foreign policy and trade are two items he's clearly been fucking up since he got started on them.
I'm indifferent on this one. I could agree with you. But I also understand the philosophy of 'spend money to make money'. GDP is kickin' ass, so the investment is paying off, which theoretically should pay back the deficit as long as spending decreases at some point. Trump's pledged entitlement reform in the second half of his term. So the jury's out on that one.Quote:
Balancing the budget is another obvious one
That's some ego you got there. You're opinion = "worldwide" opinion.Quote:
Immigration is a worldwide embarrassment
You think they'd turn to the democrats?Quote:
let's see if those midwestern farmers going bankrupt still wanna play the ring toss game then.
Or are you suggesting that they wouldn't have a voice anymore because they fucked it up so bad with Trump?
What would happen then? Who would represent those bankrupt farmers?
Then it definitely wouldn't be collusion to work with the French to do anything at all.
It's not clear yet if that kind of collusion took place, IMO. There was definitely money changing hands and political cooperation being given (sold, whatever) by Manafort.
Whether or not there was any direct communication about the Trump election may not be material. Maybe I'm too influenced by Hollywood, but it does seem plausible that there were implicit, unspoken agreements. I'm not making any accusations, but it's still an open question. Manafort's recent promise to give significant cooperation probably has implications which haven't come to fruition, yet.
No one has directly been convicted of openly cooperating with the Russians to affect the election, though. That much should not be in dispute.
It is perfectly clear that the Russians definitely did try to affect the outcome of the election. At the very least they used social media to spread fake news and fake outrage over the fake news. To what depth that affected anything is unknown. I know less about the DNC hacking. It's not in dispute that happened, right?
It's perfectly clear that there were shady, illegal activities involving Russia by Trump's closest advisor(s?) during the final 8 months of his campaign.
So there's good reason to retain a bit of skepticism that Trump himself is squeaky clean in all of this. No reason to jump to the conclusion that he definitely had anything to do even with Manafort's activities, but it's certainly plausible that he did.
Regardless, it doesn't look good for him either way. Best case scenario is that Trump had no knowledge of Manafort's activities, but that's not a good thing, IMO. It's an easy lesson to learn or hire someone to make sure that oversight doesn't happen again, but it's still a low-level mistake to hire someone involved in money laundering, tax evasion, and whom has political ties to a nation with interests in affecting the outcome of our election.
Yeah, for like 5 minutes.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
Source? What exactly do you mean "shady shit"? As far as I know he's guilty of money laundering and bank fraud regarding his own money. Why would the Russians pay him to do that? What would the Russians get out of paying Manafort to launder Manafort's own money?Quote:
He's also getting paid by Russia to do shady shit.
What could he have done differently? It was after Trump hired him that the Feds were able to make a case against the guy. And they probably would have never found him if he hadn't been thrust into the public eye the way that he was.Quote:
The most generous interpretation is that Trump didn't vet his campaign manager appropriately.
Was Manafort effective at his job? Did Ted Cruz withdraw before the convention or not?Quote:
Which is serious enough. And the reason he didn't vet him is that he just "hires all the best people" intuitively. In other words, he talks to people for five minutes and decides he likes them and gives them an important job.
This is foil hat bullshit and you know it.Quote:
The worst interpretation is that Trump was money laundering for Russian oligarchs and Manafort was "recommended" to him by same.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YEBUNMVP_8kQuote:
That would seem at least consistent with Manafort's weak ass, stuttering denials that Trump had any business dealings with Russians.
First, who said he had 9 seconds notice? No-one told him he'd be talking about a hurricane that day? How could he watch cable news for hours a day and not know there was a hurricane?Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
Second, saying that you can't form proper sentences using proper words speaking off the cuff is retarded. You actually can if you're not an idiot.
Contemporary accounts suggest he is much the same apart from using more profanity when the cameras are off.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
Most likely the candidates who know what the word "fictitious" means.Quote:
Origins: On 8 October 2011, the IAHYM News Network web site published a
fictitious article claiming that liberals on average had lower IQs than conservatives.
Trump can do the same thing; problem is he won't listen to them but insists he knows better.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
No, I think they will vote again for the guy who's tariffs made them go bankrupt ldo.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
fypQuote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
Really? It's not clear? There hasnt' been a shred of evidence to that effect in over 2 years now. I thought you were a man of science. Do we go about trying to prove negatives?Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
Citation neededQuote:
There was definitely money changing hands and political cooperation being given (sold, whatever) by Manafort.
For how much longer? Mueller's team doesn't work for free you know. Think about how many food stamps 30 lawyer's salaries can buy.Quote:
I'm not making any accusations, but it's still an open question.
If he is able to rat-out Trump, he had far greater incentives to do it earlier. If he's keeping secrets, it means he was willing to risk dying in prison to keep them. He's not going to give them up now just so he can die in a slightly nicer prison.Quote:
Manafort's recent promise to give significant cooperation probably has implications which haven't come to fruition, yet.
Far more likely is that he doesn't have any secrets to tell.
Yeah, but...would you not be shocked if they didn't? It's kind of on us to defend ourselves. If they're successful, it's because WE fucked up. The Russians hacking the DNC would have been a nothingburger if it didn't expose actual corruption at the DNC.Quote:
It is perfectly clear that the Russians definitely did try to affect the outcome of the election.
The russians rigged the election by exposing how the democrats were rigging the election. There's a lot of blame to go around there.
Well, put it in context. I've heard various reports regarding the scope of that campaign. Though every report I have heard as estimated the total advertising expenses at under $200K. The total amount spent by both campaigns exceeded 2.2 billion. Hillary outspent Trump almost 3 to 1. She spent 1.6B, he spent about 600M.Quote:
At the very least they used social media to spread fake news and fake outrage over the fake news. To what depth that affected anything is unknown.
Is 200K of Russian mischief really worth the last 2 years of spaz-out?
Julian Assange was dodgy about Russia being the source, but yeah, it's a pretty sure bet that Russia did that shit.Quote:
I know less about the DNC hacking. It's not in dispute that happened, right?
But again, there's plenty of blame to go around. If Russian hacked nothing, they wouldn't have influenced anything. But some Bernie voters found out that the DNC was helping Hillary unfairly, and then either didn't vote, or voted for Trump. So yes, you could say Russia influenced the election. But, if I told you that your wife was cheating on you, would you blame me for your divorce?
What's that now? Citation needed. Are you talking about Flynn and Popadopolous? Has that not been explained thoroughly enough?Quote:
It's perfectly clear that there were shady, illegal activities involving Russia by Trump's closest advisor(s?) during the final 8 months of his campaign.
Again, the only bad news we know about Manafort is that he tried to skimp on his taxes. He and Trump were friends for about five minutes, I'm not sure it's even reasonable to hypothesize about an illegal relationship. Has every person you've ever encountered had a clean criminal record? If not, I think we should look into your activities, right?Quote:
So there's good reason to retain a bit of skepticism that Trump himself is squeaky clean in all of this. No reason to jump to the conclusion that he definitely had anything to do even with Manafort's activities, but it's certainly plausible that he did.
Are you saying that Trump should have known that Manafort was a tax cheat before the Feds did? What "knowledge of Manafort's activities" should Trump have had? What has come to light about Manafort now that would have been reasonable for Trump to know back then?Quote:
Regardless, it doesn't look good for him either way. Best case scenario is that Trump had no knowledge of Manafort's activities, but that's not a good thing, IMO.
It's not like there's a registry of money launderers. The whole purpose of such activity is to obfuscate. How exactly would you expect Trump to figure it out? And if it is possible for Trump to have figured it out...why wouldn't the Feds have figured it out before Trump went looking?Quote:
It's an easy lesson to learn or hire someone to make sure that oversight doesn't happen again, but it's still a low-level mistake to hire someone involved in money laundering, tax evasion,
Do you think someone in Obama's justice department would have done Trump a solid and tipped him off?
How many of those do you think there are? I'd put the number somewhere north of 190Quote:
and whom has political ties to a nation with interests in affecting the outcome of our election.
Egg on my face on that one. Shit.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
To be fair I've been for way too long and I'm stoned.
If I put a camera on you 20 hours a day, I wonder how dumb you would look if I took all the worst shit and talked about each gaffe for weeks on end.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
So the presumption here is that he usually is being smart and coherent and only suffers occasional slip ups. I assume you could link me a clip where he sounds smart and coherent then, right? Anything from his presidency. He does have a camera on him for 20 hours a day, so if he's smart, said camera should capture that at some point, right? Like a cctv at a haunted house.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
How much do you think I care about how other people perceive me? I'll give you a clue... about as much as you care about what I'm having for dinner. In case I've misread that situation, probably pizza.Quote:
Originally Posted by oskar
I don't need to self reflect with regards to the bollocks I talk on the internet. It's not like I'm gonna apply for a job and my potential employer is going to say "wait a minute, didn't you say something dumb on an obscure internet forum?".
In case you're wondering if I was making a point, I was... that the hypothetical situation of Hillary taking it up the arse from a stripper toy boy, and then having her body mocked by that very toy boy, would be reason for outrage by the very people who are mocking Trump. Forgive me if I'm wrong to say you'd be one of them. This kind of mockery exposes the hypocrisy of what society is becoming. Doesn't that concern you?
There are plenty of clips of Trump speaking in "normal" language and sentences.
Even posted in this thread, but a while ago.
The hyperbole that Trump is stupid is misguided at best.
Stupid people don't establish a brand that is recognized world-wide and maintain that brand for decades.
Give credit where it's due.
Maybe he's a con-man. Maybe that describes every politician in Washington. I'm not bothered by it.
Politicians are all full of shit and expecting any one of them to be anything else is naive, IMO.
The challenge is open to you as well!
No, your fantasy doesn't concern me because it's a fantasy.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
You're getting the Banana treatment from now on.
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/vi...on_reform.htmlQuote:
Originally Posted by oskar
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9HQh0AD7Ros
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mgMCczkaWCk
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y1HSmX3gAiE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5fX5y8RZeZE
Theres hours of this stuff
So in 4 of those he's reading from a piece of paper. I'm not challenging his ability to read words someone else wrote down for him.
The hurricane florance one is the only one where he's speaking freely, and it starts off like this: https://youtu.be/y1HSmX3gAiE?t=2m45s
can you give me a time stamp where he stops sounding like a retarded person and becomes coherent?
You watched an awful lot of video in not an awful lot of time.Quote:
Originally Posted by oskar
What's your beef exactly?Quote:
The hurricane florance one is the only one where he's speaking freely, and it starts off like this:...
can you give me a time stamp where he stops sounding like a retarded person and becomes coherent?
Fake News.Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
It must've been the other thread which is 2x as long as this one, and I'm bored of scanning forum pages.
If it makes you feel better, your efforts would have been completely in vain anyway.Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
Someone who believes the guy who became a billionaire real estate tycoon in NYC, parlayed that into a massive international merchandise brand, followed that up by winning a presidential election is stupid....can't be reached.
Irrational behavior does not respond to reason.
Oooh please elaborate. You mean I was getting the ong treatment before?Quote:
Originally Posted by oskar