US Politics

[Wanna-B-Fanboy]

6 minutes ago, 17to85 said:

Democrats don't show up to vote if they are unhappy with the party, they have to cater to them, unlike Republicans who have guaranteed support no matter what kind of **** they do.

 

FFS

[The Unknown Poster]

He’s now attacking social media for their banning of racist trolls.  He’s clueless about freedom speech.  He’s going off the deep end. 

[The Unknown Poster]

He’s now attacking social media for their banning of racist trolls.  He’s clueless about freedom speech.  He’s going off the deep end. 

[Mark F]

Every day another day of Trump lying and idiocy.
 

Quote

 

(Bloomberg) -- Donald Trump said that Russian President Vladimir Putin isn’t seeking to “get involved” in the crisis in Venezuela, despite assertions by the American president’s top national security advisers that the Kremlin is offering critical support to Nicolas Maduro’s regime.

“He is not looking at all to get involved in Venezuela other than he’d like to see something positive happen for Venezuela,” Trump told reporters at the White House on Friday, following a call with the Russian leader earlier in the day. “And I feel the same way. We want to get some humanitarian aid -- right now people are starving, they have no water, they have no food.”

 

 

“If I had a world of my own, everything would be nonsense. Nothing would be what it is, because everything would be what it isn't. And contrary wise, what is, it wouldn't be. And what it wouldn't be, it would. You see?”

 

Lewis B. Caroll anticipating the rise of Trump.

 

Edited May 4, 2019 by Mark F

[Wanna-B-Fanboy]

On 2019-05-02 at 12:38 PM, Zontar said:

With so many slam dunks in the report you gotta wonder about Mueller.

Why no recommendations for indictments 

Did the Russians buy him too? 

Launch the investigation. 

The resistance starts here and now.

Here, this explains why Mueller didn't indict trump, please read if you are being honest about wondering why:

 

https://news.bloomberglaw.com/white-collar-and-criminal-law/insight-mueller-doctrine-prevented-finding-that-trump-committed-crimes

 

 

[Mark F]

edit

Edited May 4, 2019 by Mark F

[Wanna-B-Fanboy]

20 minutes ago, Mark F said:

edit

I am always curious about these "edits" 

🤯

[Mark F]

31 minutes ago, wanna-b-fanboy said:

I am always curious about these "edits" 

🤯

I wrote

"This is like asking a blind person to desribe a photograph, or like asking a deaf person to hum the melody to a beatles tune."

People like him are either incapable of understanding the direction USA is headed, or, understand,  and are ok with a fascist dictatorship headed by an unrestrained, above the law leader.

There are lots of people who are the latter.

Non of them lived through ww2, or spoke to or are related to anyone who fought against fascism and dictatorship in that war.

Those soldiers and anyone who remembers, would be horrified and nauseated by people like Zontar.

Edited May 4, 2019 by Mark F

[Zontar]

2 hours ago, wanna-b-fanboy said:

Here, this explains why Mueller didn't indict trump, please read if you are being honest about wondering why:

 

https://news.bloomberglaw.com/white-collar-and-criminal-law/insight-mueller-doctrine-prevented-finding-that-trump-committed-crimes

 

 

Then you should be wondering why Mueller never cited the supposed legal precedents preventing charges and what was stopping him from stating the explicit crimes of collusion and obstruction and being also explicit why he couldn't recommend charges. He didn't because he couldnt because there was no crime.

Mueller settled for passive aggressive innuendo because he had nothing else.

Edited May 4, 2019 by Zontar

[Wanna-B-Fanboy]

28 minutes ago, Zontar said:

Then you should be wondering why Mueller never cited the supposed legal precedents preventing charges and what was stopping him from stating the explicit crimes of collusion and obstruction and being also explicit why he couldn't recommend charges. He didn't because he couldnt because there was no crime.

Mueller settled for passive aggressive innuendo because he nothing else.

Well... I don't know what to do Zontar- all the questions quoted above are answered in the link I provided. I can't help you if you are not even going to read the answers 

 

[kelownabomberfan]

22 hours ago, The Unknown Poster said:

He’s now attacking social media for their banning of racist trolls.  He’s clueless about freedom speech.  He’s going off the deep end. 

yes, glad to see this racist troll banned...I really didn't like the company he kept...

[kelownabomberfan]

On 2019-05-03 at 3:38 PM, 17to85 said:

Democrats don't show up to vote if they are unhappy with the party, they have to cater to them, unlike Republicans who have guaranteed support no matter what kind of **** they do.

This is just 100% BS.

[Wanna-B-Fanboy]

56 minutes ago, kelownabomberfan said:

This is just 100% BS.

How so? Which portion of his statement are calling bunk?

 

[Wanna-B-Fanboy]

59 minutes ago, kelownabomberfan said:

yes, glad to see this racist troll banned...I really didn't like the company he kept...

Yet Milo and Alex Jones are ok?

Interesting- I am happy they all got banned. Free speech is one thing, but Facebook is a proprietary platform that does not guarantee free speech.

[kelownabomberfan]

21 minutes ago, wanna-b-fanboy said:

How so? Which portion of his statement are calling bunk?

 

The Democrats also have support from the base, no matter what they do.  That was my point.

[kelownabomberfan]

20 minutes ago, wanna-b-fanboy said:

Yet Milo and Alex Jones are ok?

Did I say that?  I just found it funny that Farrakhan was lumped in with those far right guys.  Weird too.  Like he was a sacrificial lamb so that FB could say they weren't just targeting the far right. 

20 minutes ago, wanna-b-fanboy said:

Interesting- I am happy they all got banned. Free speech is one thing, but Facebook is a proprietary platform that does not guarantee free speech.

Slippery slope though.  Who makes these decisions, and what are the consequences?  What happens when they start banning people who you do agree with?  Will you still be in agreement with banning peoples' access to social media platforms?  How long can Antifa stay on FB given how much violence they incite? The part that made no sense was that FB couldn't explain where the terms of service were violated by any of these people.  You would think that they could at least provide that much information.

[Wanna-B-Fanboy]

1 minute ago, kelownabomberfan said:

The Democrats also have support from the base, no matter what they do.  That was my point.

Yup, fair point.

I would be interested to see left base tested like the right has been. And see if they would put up with all the fascism, racism, sexual assault, serial lying, corruption, criminality, constitution defecation, collusion with a hostile foreign government, personal gain at the expense of country and party, bullying, thin skinned bitchiness, assclownery. I suspect the left's base wouldn't be as big- maybe 10-15% not 37%.

 

 

[The Unknown Poster]

Disgusting 

 

[Wanna-B-Fanboy]

Uhg... she has a point:

 

 

[Wanna-B-Fanboy]

6 hours ago, kelownabomberfan said:

Slippery slope though.  Who makes these decisions, and what are the consequences?  What happens when they start banning people who you do agree with?  Will you still be in agreement with banning peoples' access to social media platforms?  How long can Antifa stay on FB given how much violence they incite? The part that made no sense was that FB couldn't explain where the terms of service were violated by any of these people.  You would think that they could at least provide that much information.

If I started spouting off on this site with hateful rhetoric, inciting violence, propagating lies and spreading hate- I would have my ass banned, my posts taken down and receive a terse message that I was banned and violated the ToS of this site. All that would be more than acceptable and totally expected- why would FB, twitter or any other social media platform be any different?

[Zontar]

When Trump won the nomination a long list of wealthy and influential Republicans drew up an actual manifesto telling people why they won't support Trump and why other republicans shouldn't either.

Numerous prominent conservative columnists announced they will leave the party and their magazines made it their mission to criticize his every move.

Name on instance Democrats or Liberals did anything close to this.

To say Republicans are a monolith is ridiculous.

Edited May 5, 2019 by Zontar

[The Unknown Poster]

22 hours ago, wanna-b-fanboy said:

Here, this explains why Mueller didn't indict trump, please read if you are being honest about wondering why:

 

https://news.bloomberglaw.com/white-collar-and-criminal-law/insight-mueller-doctrine-prevented-finding-that-trump-committed-crimes

 

 

He’s been told so many tines.  Parody account. 

[The Unknown Poster]

Noted cheater can’t understand a disqualification or spell the name of one of his States.  Haha

 

[Mark F]

1 hour ago, The Unknown Poster said:

Noted cheater can’t understand a disqualification or spell the name of one of his States

Quote

 

what a great idea it was to hand the presidency to the loudmouth know-it-all at the end of the bar. whatever you say, Donny

 

 

 

Seen at that twitter thread....😂

A lot of very funny comments at that thread.

Edited May 5, 2019 by Mark F

[bustamente]

So Trump just had to comment on the Kentucky Derby, still doesn't know how to spell.