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.
Printable View
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.
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?
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
Hmmm, you can talk to wuf about that shit.Quote:
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?
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
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. DUHQuote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
According to whom? DUHQuote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
The constitution...DUHQuote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
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.
*sigh*. SMHQuote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
Then maybe just shut the fuck upQuote:
I'm not a lawyer
Why? Is there a requirement to be a lawyer to have an opinion on something?Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
Maybe just shut the fuck up yourself.
.
Quote:
Article II ยง 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."
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
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?
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.
No it doesn't.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
Also falseQuote:
but he can't get impeached because he can't be conviced of a crime?
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?Quote:
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?
If those are both actual crimes....how is it that Clinton wasn't ever charged? Never tried? Never convicted? Never sentenced? But still impeached?
Yes, short term memory is part of a high-IQQuote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
Yeah. And it's still a true statement.Quote:
You claimed he could still be impeached for collusion even though it wasn't a crime
Also true, just like Clinton was never convicted.Quote:
It had nothing to do with being convicted.
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 beforeQuote:
According to your logic, he can only be impeached if he doesn't commit a crime.
Try asking Oskar if you can borrow some of his IQ'sQuote:
Please, use your fukcing head.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
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?
lolQuote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
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.
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
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.
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.
What are you bickering about in here? Someone sum it up in something like four words.
OMFG get off your demagogue soapbox. No one is even talking about treason.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
I thought you weren't a lawyer?? I challenge you to go find a lawyer, and ask what the actual definition of treason is.Quote:
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.
That's my argument because it's self-evidently true.Quote:
Now, your argument, because you watch a lot of Fox News, is that there's no evidence of collusion.
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....Quote:
As if the first thing any good prosecutor does when he obtains evidence is go to the press with it.
FALSE. Just plain wrong. Like immensely, embarrassingly wrong.Quote:
Mueller has had ZERO leaks in 2+ years
If he had evidence, he wouldn't be begging Trump to walk into a perjury trap.Quote:
So you don't know what evidence he does or doesn't have
Do any of those people seem worried?Quote:
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.
And yet if he complained at all you'd excoriate him for being a weak crybaby. God you're a piece of work!Quote:
If I were Trump I'd be a bit uneasy with that.
Yeah, 2 years at this and he spent a little over 1 day with a guy.....lol, he must have found the smoking gun!!Quote:
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.
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
Hillary lost; Democrat tantrumQuote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
Trump on way out.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
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 poop
Nice dream; not real.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
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
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
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
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
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
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.
Is that relevant evidence to something? If someone looks worried? Fuck you should be a lawyer.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
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
Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
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.
Collusion isn't treason, not unless the people you're colluding with are enemies at war. Are America at war with Russia?Quote:
Originally Posted by poop
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.Quote:
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.
Google what treason means in American law.
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:
Ok, it's certainly a crime though
Like I said above, "you got me". It's called something else other than treason in the US, but it's still illegal.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
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.Quote:
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.
I know collusion is not treason, that took seconds of googling.
There's a bit of cross posting, I would have amended my post if I saw your reply.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
We're certainly never going to hear the truth from anyone who's guilty if that's what you mean.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
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.
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 OngBonga
If they did it, they all broke the law afaik and should be (or have been) tossed out.
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).Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
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 Poopadoop
"getting dirt"Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
What evidence of her corruption did the Russians uncover?
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 Poopadoop
I can't remember, I lost interest in it long ago.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
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.
haha, I don't. I support the least objectionable ones I can find.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
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?Quote:
here's a real belief among some people that Trump is compromised by Putin somehow
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:
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
8 guilty verdicts and 10 mistrial verdicts. Mueller must be crying all over his leather briefcase.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oj0jS7SEQl0
Edit: Well I guess those other 10 verdicts are superfluous really. Manafort's already up to > 60 years in prison.
No-one should be judged independent of the evidence. I personally think there's plenty enough fishy about 9/11 to take the idea of an inside job out of the tinfoil hat category.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
As for Trump, the evidence is still pending, so thats why i say 'belief' rather than 'fact'.
Calmed down? What was going on that has calmed down? He's wrecked the Iran nuclear deal, made a pretend deal with NK that KJU immediately spat on, gone on an insult tour of Europe, started a trade war that is damaging the world economy, separated thousands of children from parents at the border, hired and fired people left and right. It never ends.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
If there's calm in other places in the world it's only because everyone is busy picking their jaws up off the floor.
This is a good thing. Iran's elite are bad people. This deal was making them richer. The Iranian people deserve better.Quote:
He's wrecked the Iran nuclear deal
Have NK fired any rockets since?Quote:
made a pretend deal with NK that KJU immediately spat on
Some people need to be insulted.Quote:
gone on an insult tour of Europe
World econnomy? His remit is the American economy.Quote:
started a trade war that is damaging the world economy
Haven't we established this is leftism talk for "detained criminals, while caring for their children"?Quote:
separated thousands of children from parents at the border
Why does this concern you? It doesn't concern me.Quote:
hired and fired people left and right.
The incessant noise never ends.Quote:
It never ends.
Or maybe, just maybe, this "literally Hitler" guy that everyone seems to hate isn't quite as terrible a person as his predecessor.Quote:
If there's calm in other places in the world it's only because everyone is busy picking their jaws up off the floor.
Not enough IQ'sQuote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
The main problem with breaking with the Iran deal was that it sent a clear signal that the United States cannot be trusted. Any deal you negotiate can be dismantled by the next president, who may or may not be a fucking moron.
NK didn't agree to anything in writing, so there was no deal, but there was at least the expectation that they would stop developing nuclear weapons. They did not. They did not fire rockets, but we know they are actively working on nuclear weapons.
In terms of actions: there are still 500 children separated from their parents who were supposed to be reunited weeks ago. The only reason the other 2500 were reunited was because federal courts stepped in and ordered the Trump administration to do it. This is action in line with calling brown people: low iq, dogs, rapists and calling their countries shitholes, while wishing you could have more immigrants from norway. I don't know if there is an n-word tape, but I can tell you for sure that it would not change the opinion of the majority of his voter base. They knew what they were voting for, and they got it. If wuf and banana had their way, america would head straight for autocracy, and I'll say it again: after this is over, one of the main tragedies I will lement is that those who supported Trump will not be the ones paying for the consequence of their abject stupidity.
Still finger crossed that a non-zero number of trumples will find out how their second ammendment anti-tyranny tools stack up against Space Force.
Hmm, yeah good point. I guess it's hard for you to grasp something you'd prefer not to believe might be true.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
Breaking deals made by Obama because he's Obama and a lot smarter than you are is not a good thing. Never mind that all your allies were part of the deal, which makes it even worse.
The deal was touted as 'you won't have to worry about nukes from NK again' (paraphrasing Trump). Well, two weeks later photos showed they were building up their nuclear facilities, not tearing them down. Does that make you feel safe? Or do you feel safe because they're not firing empty rockets over the ocean?
"Some people need to be insulted" is the kind of arguments a 3rd grader would use. It just says nothing.
US is part of the world economy. Economics is not a zero-sum game, unfortunately. Just ask the US farmers and manufacturers who are losing out.
"We" never decided anything of the sort about child-separation policy. Any objective view on the topic is that it was a blatant and cruel attempt to dissuade immigration that went well beyond anything a decent country would do.
His hiring/firing all the best people is evidence he doesn't hire the best people. A lot of the ones who haven't quit/been fired yet are no prizes either. His family, for one thing, doesn't belong in the WH. His Education Minister (or w/e they call her) is clearly a fucking idiot who has no clue. His EPA guy is trying to destroy the EPA. The guy who runs housing knows nothing about housing. Many ambassador jobs are vacant. All this points to someone in charge who has no clue how to run a gov't but just tries to make it entertaining for the bleating 33% of the country who will support him no matter what.
Or maybe so many people hate him for good reasons.
There's that as well. Never mind whether the next president is any better or worse. He's basically sending a message that whatever the last guy did I feel free to rip up the deal and so in four years (or less) you might get another guy who doesn't think America's word is worth anything either.Quote:
Originally Posted by oskar
It would certainly not surprise anyone, and I agree it's not going to sway anyone one way or another. Obviously those who accept him are ok with his racism since it's so impossible to deny at this point.Quote:
Originally Posted by oskar
"brown people"Quote:
Originally Posted by oskar
Show me that's what he said.
In his defense, he does call lots of people dogs. But 'low IQ' he seems to reserve for blacks, and the 'shithole' countries (as in 'why are we taking immigrants from all these shithole countries?') were all non-white nations iirc. I guess you could argue he was referring to their economic condition or whatever, but still it's pretty insensitive.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racial...f_Donald_TrumpQuote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
That ya have thought I believe any of these sorts of things is testament that an idea can grow so ridiculously away from the facts.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
whoa whoa whoa whoa whoaQuote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
Have you, or have you not postulated that Mueller is in fact investigating deep state corruption and the ultimate outcome of his inquiry will be the indictments of Obama administration officials within the department of justice?
Of course I have postulated that, as any free thinker would. Doesn't mean I believe it.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
What I acknowledge is that the facts tell us what meets the eye is unlikely to be what is happening.
Where did I say you believe it?Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
I'll say that I'm a free thinker, and I don't believe it's possible. That would mean that Mueller roasted Manafort as an elaborate distraction. Cmon man.
I do think that Brennan, McCabe, and Ohr are all in serious serious serious fucking trouble. But I don't think their crimes were exposed as a result of Mueller's work. Alot of people forget that Mueller's investigation is actually the third attempt to expose a Russian connection to the White House. The House and Senate intelligence committees each did their own inquiries into this, and that's where we learned about all the shady shit, and that's what got those guys in trouble.
I may have conflated what you said with what I've seen others say in the pastQuote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
Muh bad
There are five instances of the word "brown" on this page, and not once is it a Donnald Trump quote.Quote:
Originally Posted by oskar
Here's the problem I have... the people using phrases like "brown people" are those who are accusing Trump of racism.
The claims of "Trump is a racist" are so transparent it's amazing to me that people still espouse such an opinion. When you say "Trump is a racist", what you're *really* saying is:
I believe the above accurately describes, in every detail, the thought process espoused by Oskar, Jack, Poop, CNN, MSNBC, Trevor Noah, Bill Maher, Elizabeth Warren, and everyone else with a low IQ.Quote:
"I have absolutely no way to credibly debate a position against Trump's policies. There's no sensible argument against a wall. The economy is running fucking great. We're not in a war. This Russia stuff is bogus. No one really cares how sleazy he is. However, my fragile ego cannot bear the cognitive dissonance associated with admitting that I was wrong about this man being a literal demon. I can't do that because I'm weak, cowardly, and ignorant.
Rather, I think I will double down on my demon claims, and I'll scrape together any shred of flimsy evidence I can find. If I can brand this man a racist, then I can take everything he has ever said or done, put it in a box, put the box on a shelf, and completely remove him from the dialogue. If he's out, then I don't have to contend with the fact that he's actually done a pretty good job as president. I can ignore that, and then I don't have to experience the crushing cognitive dissonance associated with changing my opinion of Trump so that it's based on objective facts.
By fishing for anything that can be spun into a racist claim I can make myself feel good because I'm really good at deluding myself into believing I actually have pure motivations of compassion, equality, and racial sensitivity. Now I can feel good about ignoring the objective reality of Trump, because in my own false narrative, he's a vile racist. So in this narrative, that only exists in my feeble mind, I am a compassionate hero standing up for the rights of the oppressed. And Trump is evil. Boy that feels good."
The hypocrisy and cowardice in these sentiments is really getting old.
Why shouldn't we build a wall? RACIST!
Why shouldn't we restrict travel from countries that state-sponsor terrorism? RACIST!
Why shouldn't we cut taxes? RACIST!
Why shouldn't we have free speech? RACIST!
Why shouldn't we have competent non-activist judges? RACIST!
Why can't I use the same insults to describe all my enemies, regardless of race? RACIST!
Can we debate the issues civilly? RACIST!
And it's not just the racist thing.
Fascist! Authoritarian! Dictator! Nazi!
All of these terms are not only wrong, they're ironic in a way that would be side-splitting hilarious if it wasn't so god damn tragic. None of these words could be credibly used to describe a single Trump behavior. Meanwhile the most fascist organization on earth right now is Antifa. Try wrapping your brain around that.
Stupid. Dumb. Babbling idiot. Moron.
Sorry, no. He's done way too many complex things.
Sleaze, womanizer, uncouth, bombastic
All of these are true. But you knew about it before he became president. You knew about it for DECADES before he became president. People knew it when they voted for him. Why do we care now?
Well the first two sentences you put in others' mouths are already retarded enough to make me stop there.
As if there's no credible argument against Trump's policies. That's just authoritarianism right there. If you can't even understand where and when the other side has credible arguments, then your position is akin to a 4 year old sticking their fingers in their ears and saying 'lalala i can't hear you.'
There's one very sensible argument against building a wall, even if you are anti-immigration. It's too fucking expensive, and Mexico is not going to pay for it. This is 2018, there's a lot of better ways to have border security than a physical wall. Drones, for example. The best thing you can say about the Wall is that it's at least not as stupid and archaic a solution to a problem as trying to resurrect the coal industry.
Are you saying I didn't properly capture your essence in that hypothetical soliloquy? What exactly do you disagree with?Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
No. I'm merely making an observation that says "We've been having these debates for two years now and all they got are deplorable epithets...racist/sexist/blahblahblah." Assuming that a credible argument doesn't exist, evidenced by the fact that one hasn't materialized, is a long way from authoritarianism. But thanks for proving me right. Rather than present a credible argument, you went straight to ad hominem demagoguery.Quote:
As if there's no credible argument against Trump's policies. That's just authoritarianism right there.
If your so called 'credible' argument is "nyah racism!", then I'm not sticking my fingers in my ears and ignoring you. I'm openly mocking you.Quote:
If you can't even understand where and when the other side has credible arguments, then your position is akin to a 4 year old sticking their fingers in their ears and saying 'lalala i can't hear you.'
No it isn't. This is just wrong. Tell me your very sensible argument why it's too much money. When you're done I'll name ten expensive things the government pays for but shouldn't. If expense is a sensible argument against a wall, then it's a sensible argument against Planned Parenthood, the post office, foreign aid, and overburdened welfare programs.Quote:
There's one very sensible argument against building a wall.....It's too fucking expensive
Hey look, here's some money!
https://freebeacon.com/issues/califo...nds-snap-work/
Oh, they will pay. Obviously they're not going to write a check. But they will pay.Quote:
and Mexico is not going to pay for it.
This is also wrong. I see you claim to have credible arguments. I see you trying to impugn me as being naive and childish for refusing to acknowledge when and where the other side has credible arguments. however, you would only be right in that position if you actually had credible arguments. Talking bullshit is not credible. When someone calls it bullshit, it's on you to explain why it's not bullshit. It shows the glaring weakness and lack of credibility in your argument if all you have for a defense is "You're just stubborn" (more ad hominem demagoguery)Quote:
This is 2018, there's a lot of better ways to have border security than a physical wall.
not a credible argument. Look, when two people disagree it's because one of them is a missing a fact. Here you are missing an obvious fact that you could only ignore if you were thoughtlessly possessed by partisan anger. The fact that you can't see why this is a completely ineffective solution pretty much proves that you actually have no interest in a sincere debate between credible arguments. You're just so hopelessly insecure that you'll confirmation-bias yourself into believing anything as long as it defies one of Trump's ideas.Quote:
Drones, for example.
Do you wanna take a stab at why this 'drone' argument sucks? I know you know the answer. You've invoked it elsewhere to criticize Trump's policies. Funny how you've completely forgotten that logic now. If you can't figure it out, let me know. Because I can eviscerate this 'drone' idea in about three friggen seconds. It's a flimsy argument that I can easily blow into bits. Do you want me to tell you? Are you even open to the possibility that your idea is dog shit? Or do you wanna double-down on it again so I can make you look extra stupid and hypocritical?
^^^
I'm sure this is full of insights, completely unbiased and without a trace of bile. Unfortunately I'm busy now so maybe I'll get to your essay later. Then again, maybe not.
HA HA HA HA HA HA PATHETIC!Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
Runs out of credible arguments
Runs out of ad hominem demagoguery
Suddenly doesn't have time....
Nice spine, pussy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
More like:
Makes two perfectly credible arguments, concisely.
Sees a wall of text that experience tells him is full of bullshit and personal attacks.
Can't be bothered.
Says as much.
Suck it, loser.
Expense is not a credible argument. Too subjective. We pay for all kinds of shit that has a lot less utility and costs a lot more than a simple wall.
Drones are not a credible argument either. I'm still shocked that you don't see why. It stuns me that you consider yourself a person of intelligence and still say drones is a "credible argument".
Remember when you and Oskar shit all over Trump for pulling out of the Iran deal? Remember how you said it was so bad that a President just undid the work of his predecessor?
What happens when the next President says "I want open borders, and drones are too expensive?"
People want a wall because it's PERMANENT. It's not like sensors, or drones, or more manpower. It can't be 'cut' from year to year. It can't be removed and replaced based on the ideology of whoever is in office. Americans had been duped by "immigration reform" before, and it didn't work. This time they want a solution that is permanent and sustainable over the long term. Drones don't satisfy that need.
So both of your supposedly credible arguments are dog shit. That is self-evident, objective fact.
^^^
Here we go again. Guy can't even express himself in less than 1000 words.
I know what this says "Fuck you I'm great you suck, etc etc. demagogue, blah blah, blah."
Really, why WOULD I read your bullshit stupid fucked up pathological post? You really think I have an interest in your idiotic opinions and insults?
I thought you were busy? What are you still doing here?Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
Fuck off
The irony here is that you really did read it, and you know your "drones" policy is fucking stupid. You just wanna play ostrich now so you don't have to face the idiocy of your own ideas.
Keep the faith my friend. Maybe someday they'll make a pill for cognitive dissonance.
Laughing at you.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
For a guy with such a high IQ it sure is easy to pull your strings. Look at how many words I made you type that no-one's even going to read.
It would be hilarious if it wasn't tragicQuote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
You're both hilarious and tragic at the same time. Congrats.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
So tell me again why drones would be so effective?
I never told you the first time, 'cause it's so obvious that anyone who isn't a retard could figure it out.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
Actually, it's not obvious.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
What IS obvious, is how ineffective such a measure would be, and how it would completely fail to meet the mandate to secure the border that emerged from the 2016 election.
Sorry if you don't have enough IQs to figure it out, or even find the info on the internet about how they're already using drones in border patrol. I'd give you a long, detailed explanation about it, but it sounds like it's beyond your capacity to take it in.
Hmm, and that's been working right? It's been so effective that half the country voted for a crass celebrity because he promised a wall.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
Once again, a disagreement is born because one stubborn demagogue is ignoring facts. If you embraced all the available information, you and I would probably agree on everything.
But apparently you only have enough IQ's to embrace the information that feeds your confirmation bias.
Net migration from Mexico was negative at the end of Obama's 2nd term.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
Maybe you need to spend less time making up stories on the internet and go back to finance class and get a brush up on what 'net negative' means, dunno.
Half?Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
Don't be so hard on yourself.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
fypQuote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
yea that's it lol.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
Stupidest thing you've said today. And that's saying ALOT.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
Lumping in legal immigrants and claiming a "net negative" is a silly trick that demagogues use when they want to be deceptive. Or, it's a stupid mistake that idiots make when they're ruled by confirmation bias.
Are you really telling me that more Americans crossed into Mexico illegaly than vice-versa?
The problem we're trying to solve is the illegal entry into America. You're trying to make into some kind of referendum on Mexico. Demagogue
Nice reductio ad bananum there. How many edits did it take you to twist my words into saying what you wanted them to say?
You really are useless as an interlocutor. That's why no-one takes you seriously. It's surprising that you spend so much time arguing with people but can't even form a cogent representation of what they said.
Lol, perfect example
Well, no I'm not, and no-one would possibly think I was unless they're a moron.Quote:
Are you really telling me more Americans crossed into Mexico illegally than vice-versa?
Try reading what people say and taking it literally. Maybe use a dictionary if it helps. Don't just change the words around so it sounds like they're saying something silly and pretend that's what they really meant instead of the words they actually used.
Your post 168 above is another perfect example of constructing someone else's arguments and then dismantling them. At least it's clear you're making up an imaginary enemy there and quoting them for whatever reason.
More usually, it's like you're living in a different world where no matter what other people say, if you can re-arrange the words and/or insert different words to make their argument incorrect, you've won the argument.
That's not how debates work. Sorry if a real debate over facts is too much for you to handle, what with your low IQ and everything.
Why is net migration even a relevant stat if we're talking about policies aimed at strictly illegal immigration?
Why won't you just contend with the facts and give up this shitty ad-hominem demagoguery
As any free thinker would?Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
"Sir, did you postulate that the ultimate outcome of the Mueller probe will be that Obama is going to prison? - No? Well I guess you're not a free thinker, then! ANY free thinker would have postulated that. If you didn't postulate that, I don't know what kind of thinker you are, but you sure as hell aren't a FREE thinker!"
I guess any free thinker would have also made statements like "russia is still a thing? el oh el" - just a couple of days ago.
I'm predicting (different from postulating) that there will be a lot more free thinking happening around these parts in the coming months. Will take a lot of free thinking to convince yourself that you've been on the right side of history, and I believe you'll be able to do it.
I did take it literally. And then I wondered why you would even bring that up. It's completely not cogent, and even mentioning that statistic is wholly absurd.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
So....I had HOPED that maybe you were just stupid, and by reprhasing your statement into the stupidity that it appears to be, might help you reconcile the idiotic inconsistencies that exist in your head.
But if you're telling me that you're NOT stupid, and that you just have no sensible defense for your position, and you can't meet a challenge to rise above demagoguery, so you used an irrelevant stat to distract from the flimsiness of your own argument....then I guess I stand corrected.
I've told him a long time ago I will only respond to the first statement of any post he makes. What he's doing is as old as the internet. Bury you so far in bullshit statements that you can't possibly answer them all, and no matter how much you address, he can always go: BUT YOU DIDNT ANSWER THAT ONE! Why won't you answer that one!Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
Why not say that the first time then. It's a valid argument.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
Why turn the words around so they mean something completely absurd?
If you say 'that's irrelevant', then leave it at that, you're doing fine.
it's when you say 'are you saying xyz?' , where 'xyz' is obviously retarded, when the person obviously isn't saying that, then you're being an idiot.
Why is it valid? Were you being stupid? Or stubborn?Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
It was not obvious to me that you weren't saying something obviously retarded.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
Fuck youQuote:
Originally Posted by oskar
Have a nice day.
Even the most stubborn retard knows it's not difficult to see drones are cheaper than a physical wall. You still have to monitor the space somehow, whether it's to see if someone is scaling the wall or digging a tunnel under it or whatever. So either you send patrols around in trucks (inefficient and costly), use cameras (static, can only cover so much area at once, and can be disable), or you have drones do that monitoring.
Here's how it works, in terms even a moron can follow: Agent GI Joe sits in his command center with a wall of cameras connected to drones flying around the border area. When he sees someone cross the border, he gets the A Team and they go round 'em up.
Each drone costs probably 1/10000th of what an area of actual wall that covers the same size would cost and does the same job. See how easy that is?
I made a mistake.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
It was obvious, completely obvious what my words were. Why you felt the need to turn them into something absurd when they were merely irrelevant is the issue here.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
Banana, I'm pretty sure you have a gun. Banana, the deep state compromised Michael Cohen, and he's implicating Trump in a crime that will get him impeached. Banana, this is the deep state toppling a democratically elected president! It's time to make a stand, Banana! The time for heroism is now!