A Thread for Trump's Self-Inflicted Wound of the Day [Archive] - Page 2

Savageheart

07-06-2017, 06:56 PM

The government both state and federal takes a rather dim view of Blackmail. Has there been some major change or have no charges been filed, because this hasn't met the merit of a crime?

You can make a solid argument that CNN acted poorly without limiting yourself with personal affront, or stating that they committed an illegal act. You're belittling your own argument by sprinkling it with personal attacks for no reason.

I don't expect you to agree with me but that no one can make an amicable debate here ever is just silly. I can even follow you down that rabbit hole regarding CNN for the most part, I wont agree that it's illegal however nor that they are any less in a pocket than other news sites.

My statement and evaluation is thus, Both CNN and Fox news are reputable news sources, however they only print what fits their dynamic. Further their "entertainment news" selections such as Hannity are entirely op-ed with no requirement of veracity required.

Regarding "the reddit user" said individual posted all manor of crazy, arguably racist anti-semetic and anti-muslim things.

Freedom of Speech is not Freedom of responsibility nor freedom of consequence. You absolutely have the right to say and publish any thing you would like, those statements are not somehow protected from judgement.

Judgement is exactly what the adult male, not a 15 year old boy (someone was making that assertion earlier not sure if it was corrected) was seeking reprieve from, hence his apology and the removal of all his posts (which have all been archived anyway)

The anonymity of the internet is not a guaranteed right. If I exposed your personal information it would not be a crime, if I did so through legal means. The courts have already ruled your employer can fire you based on things you post online.

Regarding the partisan hack comment, I will say I have my bias but it is not where you think it is, I'd tell you all the republicans I've voted for but it's likely based on history you'd just tell me I was a liar, with uglier words.

Some of you take all the fun out of debate, all you want is to scream obscenity and have your own personal parrots favor you. Be dynamic, for all T4Fs hyperbole she does give one sound bit of advice, labored with her own personal insult.

Read outside your bias. You might find it interesting.

Savageheart

07-06-2017, 07:02 PM

Similar to what I saw on Facebook a while back (it's been good for one thing in about 8 years):

"Arguing with a Democrat is like arguing with a monkey; they are just going to fling their shit everywhere and strut around like they won."

It's funny because it's so true.

Honestly outside of T4F the conservatives are the ones throwing the most shit here, if someone disagrees with you, you get loud, you get personal and you get there in a hurry.

People don't avoid this sub because you are right, people avoid you because you scream belligerence and howl indignity.

You can do better, and be better.

Tgo01

07-06-2017, 07:08 PM

The government both state and federal takes a rather dim view of Blackmail. Has there been some major change or have no charges been filed, because this hasn't met the merit of a crime?

Yes, just like Hillary Clinton gets away with committing a crime I fully expect her own news organization is gonna get away with a crime as well.

You taking the time4fun approach on this one? As long as someone hasn't been charged with a crime means they can't have committed a crime? So in that case Trump and his entire administration did nothing wrong in regards to Russia and everyone should shut up about it now, right?

You can make a solid argument that CNN acted poorly without limiting yourself with personal affront, or stating that they committed an illegal act. You're belittling your own argument by sprinkling it with personal attacks for no reason.

Personal attacks against whom, CNN or you? If it's the former; I can easily call CNN a piece of shit news organization while making a good argument. If it's the latter; stop saying stupid shit and I'll stop calling you out for it.

I don't expect you to agree with me but that no one can make an amicable debate here ever is just silly.

What exactly did I say that hurt your feelings? I called you a partisan hack? It's true. I've seen shit so often it's cliche by now. Someone pretending to be non-partisan, being "above the petty attacks", all the while showing a very obvious one sided slant in one direction.

I have plenty of "liberal" views, but I recognize that overall I lean more right and find myself agreeing with the right more often than the right. I can admit this shit. Why can't you? But no, you want to pretend to be "center" because you think it gives your opinions more weight.

Was it when I said your argument was one of the 20 dumbest arguments I've heard in my life? That's because it's true. I have no problem with people making rational argument, even if they are wrong. I have a problem with people making obviously stupid arguments.

Freedom of Speech is not Freedom of responsibility nor freedom of consequence.

No shit, that's why he went to an ANONYMOUS website to post these things.

The anonymity of the internet is not a guaranteed right. If I exposed your personal information it would not be a crime, if I did so through legal means.

Again, no shit. You can feel free to "out" me all you want. What you CAN'T do is blackmail me with that information? Why is this such a hard concept for people to grasp?

You: "Hey, I think you're a dick so I'm going to remove your anonymity."
Me: "Well that's a dick move but there's not much I can do about it."

Compare that to...

You: "Hey, I have private information on you that I want to spread online in an attempt to get your physically attacked. Or worse. If you want me to keep this information private issue an apology, delete all of your posts, and never post again. Got it?"
Me: "STFU YOU FUCKING PUSSY!"

See the difference? No, honestly, I want an honest answer to my very real honest question...do you see the difference?

Tgo01

07-06-2017, 07:11 PM

Honestly outside of T4F the conservatives are the ones throwing the most shit here, if someone disagrees with you, you get loud, you get personal and you get there in a hurry.

People don't avoid this sub because you are right, people avoid you because you scream belligerence and howl indignity.

You can do better, and be better.

Aww, someone's fee fees hurt?

Suck it up. If you can't defend your argument because someone said something not nice then perhaps this isn't the place for you anyways.

I also laughed.

The so called non-partisan here is telling us it's the conservatives throwing the most shit around here. Dude, have you fucking read many threads in this political folder?

Steve

07-06-2017, 07:13 PM

Hi. I'm Steve.

drauz

07-06-2017, 07:15 PM

Fine. Let me rephrase: I hate drauz.

There, pick that apart!

http://mashable.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/Supernatural-Dean.gif

Savageheart

07-06-2017, 07:18 PM

One is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. Hillary Clinton was charged with no crime and the investigation was concluded. Donald Trump and his organization are still under investigation.

You cannot leap to a Hillary = Donald narrative because they are not the same things, nor the same cases.

Investigation does not equal crime, FULL STOP. However, until the investigation is concluded all you are doing is drawing a false comparison.

Blackmail is a crime, there is nothing but public record between CNN and Law Enforcement. There is has been to date no announced investigation or criminal proceedings.

Regarding the investigative journalism they are within their rights to do just that, and the only difference between the two statements you made is that were they accurate your response would be.

LET ME POST A VERY PUBLIC LENGTHY APOLOGY AND DELETE MY OFFENSIVE MATERIAL OF MY OWN ACCORD, PLEASE DON'T TELL PEOPLE WHO I AM.

I'm not going to bother addressing the who what when why of how you can be insulting, either you see it or you don't. You'd be more fun to talk to if you did though.

time4fun

07-06-2017, 07:19 PM

Did you even fucking READ the FEDERAL LAW I just fucking linked to?

Holy fucking shit.

You can't possibly be this fucking dumb.

It's just simply not possible. IT'S NOT POSSIBLE!

....

If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or because of his having so exercised the same;

I don't know why I even bother, but maybe you'll learn something today.

First Section 241 doesn't apply when the opposing party is engaging in Constitutionally protected acts. It can't be invoked against the Free Press for daring to report on a situation. (Particularly when the action in question was them not reporting personal information about someone)

Second, to invoke Section 241 you have to clearly indicate a specific Federally or Constitutionally-guaranteed action that is being interfered with. If you're invoking some generic First Amendment "Free Speech" right- then you have to show that the action in some way, shape, or form involved the relationship between the alleged victim and the US government.

Engaging in actions intended to prevent or punish someone for trying to vote is the classic example. Engaging in actions intended to prevent or punish someone for engaging in political protest would be another example. Posting on a forum doesn't even remotely meet this criteria. If it did- then you could sue PC every time they banned you because they were conspiring to deprive you of your Free Speech.

In conclusion- Section 241 has absolutely no bearing on the CNN situation.

Savageheart

07-06-2017, 07:22 PM

Aww, someone's fee fees hurt?

Suck it up. If you can't defend your argument because someone said something not nice then perhaps this isn't the place for you anyways.

I also laughed.

The so called non-partisan here is telling us it's the conservatives throwing the most shit around here. Dude, have you fucking read many threads in this political folder?

I can and have defended my arguments, I've never claimed to be non-partisan. I can quote my previous statements where I said point blank I have my bias, I also stated it was not where you think it was.

If you cannot be a victim you're step two is clearly to make the person you disagree with look like they are.

It's much simpler than that, I'm not offended I just find your hysterics unreasonable.

time4fun

07-06-2017, 07:25 PM

Honestly outside of T4F the conservatives are the ones throwing the most shit here

I only throw it when I get it.

When the boys here don't have a good response based on facts or logic- they swap tactics.

Tgo01

07-06-2017, 07:25 PM

One is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. Hillary Clinton was charged with no crime and the investigation was concluded. Donald Trump and his organization are still under investigation.

Right, over 6 months now and no evidence of any crime. Meanwhile we have CNN ADMITTING they engaged in blackmail and you give them a pass. See why I call you a partisan hack?

LET ME POST A VERY PUBLIC LENGTHY APOLOGY AND DELETE MY OFFENSIVE MATERIAL OF MY OWN ACCORD, PLEASE DON'T TELL PEOPLE WHO I AM.

You're right, and I wouldn't accuse CNN of blackmail if they had just stated; "Out of fear for the individual's safety we have decided not to release his personal information." Instead they followed that up with a caveat: "Unless he does shit like this again."

Okay, again, DO YOU SEE THE DIFFERENCE NOW?

I'm not going to bother addressing the who what when why of how you can be insulting, either you see it or you don't. You'd be more fun to talk to if you did though.

Of course I know I can be insulting, here's my point; I don't give a flying fuck.

time4fun is insulting to me all the time but I don't throw a hissy fit and demand she tone down her rhetoric. I just give it back to her.

The only "hissy fit" I have thrown is when someone didn't just take my words out of context, but flat out made up an argument I made in which I never did.

We are all a community here and I only think of one person who has proven themselves to be an irredeemable piece of shit.

I don't even mind time4fun, I just think she's stupid.

Tgo01

07-06-2017, 07:29 PM

It can't be invoked against the Free Press for daring to report on a situation. (Particularly when the action in question was them not reporting personal information about someone)

It's not because they "dared to report on a situation", it was their flat out threat that they are keeping his identity a secret as long as the person doesn't say anything they disagree with again.

Just like I have to ask Savageheart...honestly...do you see the fucking difference?

Second, to invoke Section 241 you have to clearly indicate a specific Federally or Constitutionally-guaranteed action that is being interfered with. If you're invoking some generic First Amendment "Free Speech" right- then you have to show that the action in some way, shape, or form involved the relationship between the alleged victim and the US government.

Did you read the threat? They say they will release his personal information and open him up to ridicule and personal attacks if he ever said something they don't like again. They didn't see in which medium, they didn't say "Only on Reddit."

Fuck off with your stupid bullshit.

Posting on a forum doesn't even remotely meet this criteria. If it did- then you could sue PC every time they banned you because they were conspiring to deprive you of your Free Speech.

There's a big difference between Reddit saying "Okay we're banning you" and a third party literally threatening you to never post again. Again, DO YOU SEE THE DIFFERENCE?

I feel like I'm talking to the two dumbest walls I've ever talked to.

In conclusion- Section 241 has absolutely no bearing on the CNN situation.

In conclusion; since I'm a leftist asshole who never holds her own party accountable for anything, I have decided that CNN has done nothing wrong.

Savageheart

07-06-2017, 07:29 PM

CNN did something you did not like. It is not blackmail, it is functionally how investigative journalism has always worked.

The redditor in question removed his posts himself, fearing the content he had made would lead to severe condemnation when his name was attached to it.

They contacted him and asked him for comment on the story they were doing, that is not illegal.

Please show me where the threat was, please show me where the never post anything again was? Honestly that would be coercion and even if no criminal complaint were made a civil one could be.

You think there aren't an army lawyers looking to gnaw on CNN pro bono until judgement is received?

tyrant-201

07-06-2017, 07:29 PM

Right, over 6 months now and no evidence of any crime. Meanwhile we have CNN ADMITTING they engaged in blackmail and you give them a pass. See why I call you a partisan hack?

You're right, and I wouldn't accuse CNN of blackmail if they had just stated; "Out of fear for the individual's safety we have decided not to release his personal information." Instead they followed that up with a caveat: "Unless he does shit like this again."

Okay, again, DO YOU SEE THE DIFFERENCE NOW?

Of course I know I can be insulting, here's my point; I don't give a flying fuck.

time4fun is insulting to me all the time but I don't throw a hissy fit and demand she tone down her rhetoric. I just give it back to her.

The only "hissy fit" I have thrown is when someone didn't just take my words out of context, but flat out made up an argument I made in which I never did.

We are all a community here and I only think of one person who has proven themselves to be an irredeemable piece of shit.

I don't even mind time4fun, I just think she's stupid.

Racist rapist

Tgo01

07-06-2017, 07:30 PM

I can and have defended my arguments

Then stop being a little bitch.

I've never claimed to be non-partisan.

The fuck you haven't.

time4fun

07-06-2017, 07:31 PM

Right, over 6 months now and no evidence of any crime. Meanwhile we have CNN ADMITTING they engaged in blackmail and you give them a pass.

Please provide citations of CNN admitting they engaged in blackmail.

Because apparently the person you're so convinced was blackmailed already agreed (https://twitter.com/KFILE/status/882417992717537280) with CNN that they didn't feel threatened, and that they were in agreement with the CNN story.

For that matter- please provide an example of you saying something accurate in this thread given that your Section 241 argument showed an abject lack of understanding of how the law works.

Tgo01

07-06-2017, 07:31 PM

I only throw it when I get it.

Who was the one who started the racist and sexist rantings for no reason again?

time4fun's shit don't stink!

When the boys here don't have a good response based on facts or logic- they swap tactics.

See? Look at this sexist shit right here.

Not only do you refer to grown men as "boys", but you assume only men are attacking you because you have a vagina.

You are a sexist piece of shit. Never forget that.

Tgo01

07-06-2017, 07:32 PM

Please provide citations of CNN admitting they engaged in blackmail.

Their admitted actions were blackmail. Of course CNN isn't going to admit they engaged in blackmail. I know liberals are dumb, but they aren't quite that dumb.

Savageheart

07-06-2017, 07:33 PM

Then stop being a little bitch.

The fuck you haven't.

When you're done having a temper tantrum please re-read my earlier posts.

Tgo01

07-06-2017, 07:33 PM

When you're done having a temper tantrum please re-read my earlier posts.

I've read all of your posts in this thread.

time4fun

07-06-2017, 07:36 PM

It's not because they "dared to report on a situation", it was their flat out threat that they are keeping his identity a secret as long as the person doesn't say anything they disagree with again.

Just like I have to ask Savageheart...honestly...do you see the fucking difference?

Did you read the threat? They say they will release his personal information and open him up to ridicule and personal attacks if he ever said something they don't like again. They didn't see in which medium, they didn't say "Only on Reddit."

Fuck off with your stupid bullshit.

There's a big difference between Reddit saying "Okay we're banning you" and a third party literally threatening you to never post again. Again, DO YOU SEE THE DIFFERENCE?

I feel like I'm talking to the two dumbest walls I've ever talked to.

In conclusion; since I'm a leftist asshole who never holds her own party accountable for anything, I have decided that CNN has done nothing wrong.

1) Publishing the name of someone who was responsible for a public meme IS reporting. And it IS a constitutionally guaranteed right. Just because the word "reporting" isn't in a sentence doesn't mean you aren't describing the act.

2) Yes Tgo, I am well aware of what they said. You still cannot say that they have impeded his 1st Amendment Rights unless you can tie this to something protected by the 1st Amendment. Freedom of Speech ONLY applies to a person and their relationship with the US Government. Nothing CNN did would interfere with this person's ability to do something that meets that criteria. I get that you don't understand what the 1st Amendment does, but that doesn't magically make something illegal.

3) As far as the 1st Amendment is concerned, there is actually NO difference between your relationship with Reddit and your relationship with CNN. They are both private entities. The 1st Amendment never applies to a US citizen's relationship with a non-governmental entity.

You don't understand how the law works- that much is clear.

Savageheart

07-06-2017, 07:38 PM

You can keep saying the word Blackmail, it's not like Candyman it won't make it true.

The rule of law still mostly works here.

Also, Candyman Candyman.

time4fun

07-06-2017, 07:46 PM

Meanwhile we have CNN ADMITTING they engaged in blackmail.

Of course CNN isn't going to admit they engaged in blackmail. I know liberals are dumb, but they aren't quite that dumb.

What did I just tell you Tgo? You should think twice before calling someone else stupid- it's usually a sign that you're about to say something embarrassing.

I've read all of your posts in this thread.

Try reading your own.

leifastagsweed

07-06-2017, 07:47 PM

Also, Candyman Candyman.

I have no idea what this thread is about but that works on me. Just sayin'.

drauz

07-06-2017, 07:48 PM

Please provide citations of CNN admitting they engaged in blackmail.

Because apparently the person you're so convinced was blackmailed already agreed (https://twitter.com/KFILE/status/882417992717537280) with CNN that they didn't feel threatened, and that they were in agreement with the CNN story.

For that matter- please provide an example of you saying something accurate in this thread given that your Section 241 argument showed an abject lack of understanding of how the law works.

To be fair. Are you going to disagree with the person holding a gun to your head? Or would you just smile and nod and hope they go away.

time4fun

07-06-2017, 07:50 PM

To be fair. Are you going to disagree with the person holding a gun to your head? Or would you just smile and nod and hope they go away.

This hardly counts as someone holding a gun to your head. There's nothing to indicate that CNN was going to publish the information is this person didn't tell everyone that they weren't threatened.

THAT would be blackmail.

drauz

07-06-2017, 07:51 PM

This hardly counts as someone holding a gun to your head. There's nothing to indicate that CNN was going to publish the information is this person didn't tell everyone that they weren't threatened.

THAT would be blackmail.

Possible destruction of your personal and professional life? That is just like someone holding a gun to your head.

Astray

07-06-2017, 07:52 PM

Tgo01

07-06-2017, 07:54 PM

1) Publishing the name of someone who was responsible for a public meme IS reporting.

No shit, that's not why I accuse them of blackmailing someone, you fucking waste of oxygen. Stop with the distraction bullshit and learn how to argue like an adult.

2) Yes Tgo, I am well aware of what they said. You still cannot say that they have impeded his 1st Amendment Rights unless you can tie this to something protected by the 1st Amendment. Freedom of Speech ONLY applies to a person and their relationship with the US Government. Nothing CNN did would interfere with this person's ability to do something that meets that criteria.

CNN threatened to release his private information if he ever engaged in that behavior again. CNN does not have the right to threaten someone's free speech on a third party website. I sincerely hope you understand this. Something tells me you do, but again, your partisan ways physically won't allow you to call out CNN's bullshit. Because they suck Hillary's cock harder than you do.

3) As far as the 1st Amendment is concerned, there is actually NO difference between your relationship with Reddit and your relationship with CNN. They are both private entities. The 1st Amendment never applies to a US citizen's relationship with a non-governmental entity.

Right. Right. So if someone threatens me with physical violence if I speak on a public sidewalk it's a crime. If someone threatens me with physical violence if I speak at a private college campus it's not a crime. Have you always been this mentally retarded or is it a recent development?

You don't understand how the law works- that much is clear.

Even when I quoted from a Jew lawyer who referred to this as blackmail you laughed at me for citing him as a source.

A FUCKING JEW LAWYER.

But I'm sure your boyfriend who works as a receptionist as a law firm told you the Jew lawyer was wrong.

Tgo01

07-06-2017, 07:57 PM

What did I just tell you Tgo? You should think twice before calling someone else stupid- it's usually a sign that you're about to say something embarrassing.

Try reading your own.

You're really reaching. I have always maintained that CNN's admitted actions amounted to blackmail, now, just like a shit flinging monkey, you are claiming to have "won" this argument on some sort of stupid semantics argument.

time4fun

07-06-2017, 07:57 PM

Possible destruction of your personal and professional life? That is just like someone holding a gun to your head.

Sorry, I wasn't super clear on my objection. It's not "holding a gun to their head" unless they were explicitly trying to exact a statement from the reddit user indicating that they hadn't threatened him.

The "gun to their head" was that they not post more violent reddit stuff.

I've already stated that I think what CNN did was extreme. It's not illegal (Section 241 was a hilarious stretch), and I understand why they did it (the violence against the media culture is generally making things dangerous for journalists), but it was still crass and poorly timed.

Astray

07-06-2017, 07:58 PM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JyvXmzWFlzM

Tgo01

07-06-2017, 07:59 PM

This hardly counts as someone holding a gun to your head. There's nothing to indicate that CNN was going to publish the information is this person didn't tell everyone that they weren't threatened.

THAT would be blackmail.

So even going by CNN's own version of events, they tracked down a person's Facebook account, email address, and phone number, presumably none of which the person wanted anyone to know.

They called him up and sent him an email basically saying hey this is CNN, we found out who you are, call us, and the person isn't going to take this as some sort of threat that their personal information would be exposed?

You high?

And this is CNN's version of events! I can only imagine what their voice mail and email said.

Tgo01

07-06-2017, 08:01 PM

but it was still crass and poorly timed.

Trump wants to implement a temporary travel ban from 7 countries where the majority of terrorism comes from; "ILLEGAL! RACIST! ISLAMOPHOBIC! HE CAN'T DO THAT!"

CNN literally blackmails a random nobody into apologizing and promising to never be a meanie head again...meh, it was crass and poorly timed.

You are pathetic.

time4fun

07-06-2017, 08:01 PM

You're really reaching. I have always maintained that CNN's admitted actions amounted to blackmail, now, just like a shit flinging monkey, you are claiming to have "won" this argument on some sort of stupid semantics argument.

It's not really semantics when you contradicted yourself within 3 posts and then called someone else stupid for asking you to provide some evidence of one of the contradictory statements.

Neveragain

07-06-2017, 08:02 PM

1) Publishing the name of someone who was responsible for a public meme IS reporting.

If you're target audience has the mentality of a 5 year old it may be considered reporting.

Tgo01

07-06-2017, 08:07 PM

It's not really semantics when you contradicted yourself within 3 posts and then called someone else stupid for asking you to provide some evidence of one of the contradictory statements.

Their admitted actions amount to blackmail. Jesus Fucking Christ.

But hey, if you need this semantics "win" to feel good about yourself because you clearly never win any REAL arguments here on the PC, then have it. Sure, yeah, you got me! I contradicted myself and made myself look foolish!

Tgo01: 313,172,192
time4fun: 1

Parkbandit

07-06-2017, 08:07 PM

Tell us again about how intent only became a factor in criminal law last year when Clinton was facing inquiries for her email use.

There's not a single person on this forum that considers you to be anything even close to well-informed PB. I'd spend less time throwing stones and more time reading.

I'm time4fun and I have a PhD in speaking for everyone!

Seriously, you are so ill informed, I feel like going back to your 3rd grade teacher and bashing him/her in the face for passing you.

Parkbandit

07-06-2017, 08:09 PM

Hi. I'm Steve.

I already like you Steve.

Hi.

time4fun

07-06-2017, 08:10 PM

Tgo- posting on Reddit is NOT a 1st Amendment issue.

You can keep saying over and over again that there was some 1st Amendment infringement, but there is no 1st Amendment violation when it comes to a third party website. It doesn't exist.

If I tell you that you had better not sign an NDA with another company, or I'll tell them that you said bad things about them- I am NOT infringing on your 1st Amendment rights. If I tell you that you can't moonlight with a competitor, or I'll fire you- I am NOT infringing on your 1st Amendment rights. If I tell you that you can't loudly trash talk the company while you're working in the office, or I'll fire you- I am NOT infringing on your 1st Amendment rights.

If I tell you that you had better not go vote, or I'll kill your daughter- THAT is an infringement of your 1st Amendment rights. The latter involves your relationship with the US Government, and the former examples do not.

If what you're talking about here was a violation of Section 241, then any time Reddit removed a user, they would be criminally liable (this whole notion of third party vs direct relationship is irrelevant when all of the entities involved are private). Or any time you were asked to sign an NDA, the person who asked you to do so would be criminally liable. These are not 1st Amendment issues.

If you want to understand how Section 241 is actually used (and to understand why it never applies in cases that involve the right of the Free Press to report on public issues), go read United States v. Lee, 935 F.2d 952 (8th Cir. 1991).

drauz

07-06-2017, 08:12 PM

Sorry, I wasn't super clear on my objection. It's not "holding a gun to their head" unless they were explicitly trying to exact a statement from the reddit user indicating that they hadn't threatened him.

The "gun to their head" was that they not post more violent reddit stuff.

I've already stated that I think what CNN did was extreme. It's not illegal (Section 241 was a hilarious stretch), and I understand why they did it (the violence against the media culture is generally making things dangerous for journalists), but it was still crass and poorly timed.

Sure you don't want to try a third time? The bolded part would be curtailing someones freedom of speech with a threat.

Tgo01

07-06-2017, 08:12 PM

Tgo- posting on Reddit is NOT a 1st Amendment issue.

I didn't say you have a 1st amendment right to speak on Reddit now did I? You claimed one pathetic semantics victory so you're looking for another one?

You can keep saying over and over again that there was some 1st Amendment infringement, but there is no 1st Amendment violation when it comes to a third party website. It doesn't exist.

I'll keep this post short because I know your attention span sucks.

Is it a crime to threaten someone with physical violence if they speak on a public sidewalk?

Is it a crime to threaten someone with physical violence if they speak on a private college campus?

time4fun

07-06-2017, 08:31 PM

Sure you don't want to try a third time? The bolded part would be curtailing someones freedom of speech with a threat.

Not a violation of free speech unless it's the US government involved. (Also, violent speech is often considered to trigger the imminent lawless action test- which exempts it from 1st Amendment protection)

Again, it's like saying that your 1st Amendment rights are being violated when your employer tells you that you're not allowed to scream and swear while in the office. Or, in this case, if a recruiter tells you that if you scream and swear during your interview with them, they'll tell the companies they work for that you're a bad hire. Those aren't violations of your 1st Amendment rights.

And, again, none of this matters because the "offending action" here is itself Constitutionally protected speech. (The right of the Free Press to report publicly on public matters)

The case I cited earlier is a great example of this last point- it involved the KKK burning a cross in front of a black man's building to get him to leave town. The original judgement against the KKK was thrown out because cross burning is Constitutionally protected speech.

Latrinsorm

07-06-2017, 08:35 PM

Uh, I've explained my reasons in my own words in about two dozen posts now. But facts are racist. CNN is officially the biggest joke in the fucking world right now. Only a complete partisan hack would say otherwise. You know, you.https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/72/4c/11/724c11ce784f4ab7ace6c8a1a8182229.gif
Possible destruction of your personal and professional life? That is just like someone holding a gun to your head.Oh boy, do I get to cite President Trump firing Director Comey again? No? Ah well.

Tgo01

07-06-2017, 08:41 PM

(Also, violent speech is often considered to trigger the imminent lawless action test- which exempts it from 1st Amendment protection)

No it doesn't. Stop getting legal arguments from your secretary boyfriend and thinking you're smart.

A man once said he would get president Johnson in his rifle sights if he were ever drafted and that was considered to be protected free speech by the courts.

Oh but someone made a funny gif of Trump body slamming CNN's logo?

Literally Hitler!

Latrinsorm

07-06-2017, 08:42 PM

No it doesn't. Stop getting legal arguments from your secretary boyfriend and thinking you're smart.

A man once said he would get president Johnson in his rifle sights if he were ever drafted and that was considered to be protected free speech by the courts.

Oh but someone made a funny gif of Trump body slamming CNN's logo?

Literally Hitler!The word you're missing is "imminent".

drauz

07-06-2017, 08:44 PM

Oh boy, do I get to cite President Trump firing Director Comey again? No? Ah well.

You can say whatever you want.

time4fun

07-06-2017, 08:45 PM

No it doesn't. Stop getting legal arguments from your secretary boyfriend and thinking you're smart.

Do you even know what the imminent lawless action test is?

Do you know why the Johnson situation was considered to be covered by the 1st Amendment?

time4fun

07-06-2017, 08:47 PM

You can say whatever you want.

Not really. You could be kicked off these forums for no reason at all by the forum host platform or the moderators ;)

Tgo01

07-06-2017, 08:55 PM

The word you're missing is "imminent".

Yes, imminent violent speech isn't protected. What time4fun said was violent speech is often seen as imminent just because it's violent in nature.

Your trolling is bad.

drauz

07-06-2017, 08:57 PM

Not really. You could be kicked off these forums for no reason at all by the forum host platform or the moderators ;)

https://media0.giphy.com/media/3oAt2dA6LxMkRrGc0g/giphy.gif

Tgo01

07-06-2017, 08:58 PM

Do you even know what the imminent lawless action test is?

Do you know why the Johnson situation was considered to be covered by the 1st Amendment?

Yes, because it wasn't seen as an actual call to violence.

Just how a fucking gif about Trump body slamming CNN isn't an actual call to violence.

But hey I'm just looking for my semantics win here! You said violent speech is often considered to trigger the "imminent lawless action test", except violent speech itself does no such thing.

But if you really wish to continue making yourself look like a complete retard go ahead and cite where violent speech "often" triggers the imminent lawless action test.

Shit, a man literally talking about getting the current sitting president of the US within his rifle sights, about as violent as one can get, and his speech is protected. But go on, time4fun, prove your case that violent speech often triggers this imminent lawless action test. Go on. This should be good, I got Jiffypop on the stove already.

Tgo01

07-06-2017, 08:58 PM

time4fun:

Is it a crime to threaten someone with physical violence if they speak on a public sidewalk?

Is it a crime to threaten someone with physical violence if they speak on a private college campus?

time4fun

07-06-2017, 09:50 PM

Yes, because it wasn't seen as an actual call to violence.

So ignoring the fact that "I know of one exception!" does NOT undermine the claim that something "often" happens (which is the logical equivalent of sometimes but not always),

In Constitutional law, there is a distinction between a personal threat towards someone and the incitement of violent action in others. The Watts case was one that involved one person making what was perceived as a threat towards someone else (which the Court determined wasn't a serious threat). The kind of violent speech that often triggers the imminent lawless action test is different- and is more in line with the hypothetical future speech that someone argued would be infringed.

Bringing up the circumstances of Watts v US is completely irrelevant. And it goes to show that you fundamentally don't understand the right to free speech enough to be making claims that CNN violated them.

And my point wasn't that the reddit poster's past behavior constituted a violation of the imminent lawless action test. My point was that you can't assume that any future violent anti-media speech would automatically be considered constitutionally protected free speech.

Tgo01

07-06-2017, 10:02 PM

So ignoring the fact that "I know of one exception!" does NOT undermine the claim that something "often" happens (which is the logical equivalent of sometimes but not always)

One exception?

And no, "often" means frequently, not "sometimes but not always." But considering the only way the left can win an argument these days is to literally redefine words I can't blame you for trying this here.

The current legal thinking is NOT "Violent speech by definition is a call to violence and thus illegal" as you implied in your post.

The kind of violent speech that often triggers the imminent lawless action test is different- and is more in line with the hypothetical future speech that was infringed.

No shit speech that triggers imminent lawless action is typically violent in nature, that's often the whole point.

You are implying that violent speech itself "often" can be considered to cause imminent lawless action.

In other words:

Most cases of speech causing imminent lawless action is violent speech, but not all violent speech causes imminent lawless action.

In other other words it makes no sense to even focus on the violent nature of said speech when all that matters is whether or not the speech can be viewed as a call to action.

In other other other words; you're a fucking moron.

Bringing up the circumstances of Watts v US is completely irrelevant.

It's completely relevant. You said violent speech often falls outside of our right to free speech and then there is a case where a violent comment from someone against the actual sitting president of the US was considered free speech. So...AGAIN...it's not the fact that it's violent in nature, but what that violent speech calls for.

Can you view Trump's wrestling tweet as violent in nature? Sure, if you remove absolutely all humor from the entire universe then yes, it can be viewed as violent in nature.

Would anyone other than a leftist with their head shoved far up their ass consider it a call to action? No way in hell.

time4fun

07-07-2017, 09:31 AM

One exception?

And no, "often" means frequently, not "sometimes but not always." But considering the only way the left can win an argument these days is to literally redefine words I can't blame you for trying this here.

The current legal thinking is NOT "Violent speech by definition is a call to violence and thus illegal" as you implied in your post.

No shit speech that triggers imminent lawless action is typically violent in nature, that's often the whole point.

You are implying that violent speech itself "often" can be considered to cause imminent lawless action.

In other words:

Most cases of speech causing imminent lawless action is violent speech, but not all violent speech causes imminent lawless action.

In other other words it makes no sense to even focus on the violent nature of said speech when all that matters is whether or not the speech can be viewed as a call to action.

In other other other words; you're a fucking moron.

It's completely relevant. You said violent speech often falls outside of our right to free speech and then there is a case where a violent comment from someone against the actual sitting president of the US was considered free speech. So...AGAIN...it's not the fact that it's violent in nature, but what that violent speech calls for.

Can you view Trump's wrestling tweet as violent in nature? Sure, if you remove absolutely all humor from the entire universe then yes, it can be viewed as violent in nature.

Would anyone other than a leftist with their head shoved far up their ass consider it a call to action? No way in hell.

You've managed to miss most of the lines of argumentation. You're arguing points I wasn't making, and you're getting lost in degree and amount words again

Wrathbringer

07-07-2017, 09:52 AM

You've managed to miss most of the lines of argumentation. You're arguing points I wasn't making, and you're getting lost in degree and amount words again

You're retarded.

RichardCranium

07-07-2017, 10:37 AM

Was it really violent though? That's a huge stretch, especially when you claim that gif would cause journalists to fear for themselves.

Parkbandit

07-07-2017, 11:10 AM

Was it really violent though? That's a huge stretch, especially when you claim that gif would cause journalists to fear for themselves.

That's the modern day Democrat Party though..

ISIS? No, not a big threat.

Police? THEY NEED TO BE REIGNED IN! MAYBE ABOLISHED!!!!

Crackpot alt-leftie specifically targeting GOP? He was just mental.

Trump WWE meme? ZOMG TRUMP DECLARES WAR ON JOURNALISM!

time4fun

07-07-2017, 11:46 AM

Was it really violent though? That's a huge stretch, especially when you claim that gif would cause journalists to fear for themselves.

No one was arguing that it was violent speech. Tgo missed that. (Though CNN's objections no doubt stemmed from the fear of increasingly violent anti-journalist rhetoric that was stoked by the post)

The question was whether or not it was a 1st Amendment violation (specifically a section 421 violation) for CNN to ask someone to agree not to post anything violent in the future. The point being made was that you can't assume that future violent speech would fall under 1st Amendment protections.

It was a minor point though. The real issues are 1) Section 421 doesn't ever apply to offending actions that are themselves Constitutionally protected and 2) 1st Amendment rights don't apply to relationships between citizens and private entities.

Wrathbringer

07-07-2017, 11:48 AM

No one was arguing that it was violent speech. Tgo missed that.

The question was whether or not it was a 1st Amendment violation (specifically a section 421 violation) for CNN to ask someone to agree not to post anything violent in the future. The point being made was that you can't assume that future violent speech would fall under 1st Amendment protections.

It was a minor point though. The real issues are 1) Section 421 doesn't ever apply to offending actions that are themselves Constitutionally protected and 2) 1st Amendment rights don't apply to relationships between citizens and private entities.

Dear god just shut up. Stop posting. Don't you have anything better to do?

Back

07-07-2017, 11:51 AM

The guy who posted the original gif isn't even the one crying "blackmail". Why you guys want to argue about it is beyond me. If it truly was blackmail there would be lawyers and lawsuits and all that. Keep shouting at each other though. And Tgo01 you need to tone it down bro. You really don't need to talk to anyone the way you have been. The more you keep that up the more you will get ignored.

Methais

07-07-2017, 01:21 PM

Freedom of Speech- like all Constitutional rights- covers the relationship between the US Government and a citizen. It does not pertain to relationships between private citizens and private entities. Otherwise every NDA in the country would land someone in jail.

Word of advice Tgo- I'd think twice between calling anyone else a dipshit or stupid- because when you do it's usually a sign that you're about to say something incredibly embarrassing.

And for someone who is so continually ignorant of how the law and US politics work (let alone actual current events), you're oddly confident in your own "news sources". Maybe if you spent more time with reputable news sources, you'd have some clue as to what you were talking about.

Can you recommend some reputable news sources? Asking for a friend.

Methais

07-07-2017, 01:29 PM

Hi. I'm Steve.

I reckon where's your boyfriend Adam?

Methais

07-07-2017, 01:31 PM

Fine. Let me rephrase: I hate drauz.

There, pick that apart!

Drauz isn't a person he's just an avatar!

Parkbandit

07-07-2017, 02:23 PM

OMGWTFBBQ

07-07-2017, 03:11 PM

No one was arguing that it was violent speech. Tgo missed that. (Though CNN's objections no doubt stemmed from the fear of increasingly violent anti-journalist rhetoric that was stoked by the post)

The question was whether or not it was a 1st Amendment violation (specifically a section 421 violation) for CNN to ask someone to agree not to post anything violent in the future. The point being made was that you can't assume that future violent speech would fall under 1st Amendment protections.

It was a minor point though. The real issues are 1) Section 421 doesn't ever apply to offending actions that are themselves Constitutionally protected and 2) 1st Amendment rights don't apply to relationships between citizens and private entities.

https://media0.giphy.com/media/x3rVzCguIoLVS/giphy.gif

Tgo01

07-07-2017, 04:35 PM

You've managed to miss most of the lines of argumentation. You're arguing points I wasn't making, and you're getting lost in degree and amount words again

"I am so very very smart!"

Tgo01

07-07-2017, 04:42 PM

Let's look at the timeline of events here:

The "gun to their head" was that they not post more violent reddit stuff.

In regards to the person who created the gif.

My point was that you can't assume that any future violent anti-media speech would automatically be considered constitutionally protected free speech.

In regards to "violent anti-media speech."

No one was arguing that it was violent speech.

In regards to the wrestling gif.

You're really bad at this, time4fun.

Like really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really bad.

Methais

07-08-2017, 11:33 AM

I'm still waiting for her to recommend some reputable news sources. My friend really wants to know where he should read about the truth.

cwolff

07-09-2017, 04:05 PM

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DESo0g_U0AAsxSo.jpg:large

cwolff

07-09-2017, 10:16 PM

Well that didn't last long. He flip flopped already. Lmao. Poor Steve M. The donald forgot to tell him he was just kidding.

The fact that President Putin and I discussed a Cyber Security unit doesn't mean I think it can happen. It can't-but a ceasefire can,& did!

cwolff

07-10-2017, 08:59 AM

Donnie's got a little valley girl in him. Who knew?

Donald J. Trump‏
Verified account

@realDonaldTrump
Follow

James Comey leaked CLASSIFIED INFORMATION to the media. That is so illegal!
3:40 AM - 10 Jul 2017

Trump's frustrated, frenzied tweets — at times, he basically seemed to be live-tweeting “Fox & Friends” — came amid reports in the New York Times this weekend that the president's oldest son, Donald Trump Jr. — as well as his son-in-law Jared Kushner and former campaign manager Paul J. Manafort — met with a Russian lawyer with Kremlin ties during the 2016 campaign, after being promised damaging information on Clinton.

Parkbandit

07-10-2017, 09:19 AM

Donnie's got a little valley girl in him. Who knew?

I don't get it.

time4fun

07-10-2017, 11:17 AM

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DESo0g_U0AAsxSo.jpg:large

Yeah, this was one of the most disturbing things he's said yet.

The fact that there wasn't more outrage among the electorate is really scary.

A foreign power meddled in our election, the current President's campaign is under investigation for collusion with that power, the President himself has repeatedly sought to deny that the election hacking took place (meaning he's doing NOTHING to keep it from happening again), and then he suddenly decides that he wants to work with that country on cyber security- potentially giving Russia access to sensitive infrastructure information that could make their next attack even more effective.

Oh, and he does this a few weeks after demanding that all 50 states turn over every single byte of voter demographic and behavior data so he can put all of it on one server.

Words cannot express how bad this is. It's something that should be unthinkable.

cwolff

07-12-2017, 09:28 AM

Yeah, this was one of the most disturbing things he's said yet.

The fact that there wasn't more outrage among the electorate is really scary.

A foreign power meddled in our election, the current President's campaign is under investigation for collusion with that power, the President himself has repeatedly sought to deny that the election hacking took place (meaning he's doing NOTHING to keep it from happening again), and then he suddenly decides that he wants to work with that country on cyber security- potentially giving Russia access to sensitive infrastructure information that could make their next attack even more effective.

Oh, and he does this a few weeks after demanding that all 50 states turn over every single byte of voter demographic and behavior data so he can put all of it on one server.

Words cannot express how bad this is. It's something that should be unthinkable.

Everyday I am shocked to realize anew that there is really no low to which Trump can sink. When he said he could walk down 5th Avenue and shoot somebody and not lose votes...he was right. I wasn't on PC this Fall but I have to believe that some of Trumps defenders here were sqwaking against HRC about how a President can't be under FBI investigation.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DEiLTyYUAAAp1Pq.jpg:large

Now the numbnuts is whining that the Dems used his collusion against him! Can you believe that shit? It's surreal.

Wrathbringer

07-12-2017, 09:34 AM

#4moreyears

Parkbandit

07-12-2017, 09:39 AM

Everyday I am shocked to realize anew that there is really no low to which Trump can sink. When he said he could walk down 5th Avenue and shoot somebody and not lose votes...he was right. I wasn't on PC this Fall but I have to believe that some of Trumps defenders here were sqwaking against HRC about how a President can't be under FBI investigation.

Trump wasn't under investigation while he was running for President.

Now the numbnuts is whining that the Dems used his collusion against him! Can you believe that shit? It's surreal.

I can't believe your loose grasp of the English language led you to believe that is what he was saying.

cwolff

07-12-2017, 09:47 AM

Neveragain

07-12-2017, 09:53 AM

This one is awesome! I just was watching CNN and their story was White House Chaos. It really is amazing to have a POTUS that uses Twitter to scream at his TV. God Damn this guy is a nutjob. I think it's the ambien.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DEiew_XUwAAF51U.jpg

What's amazing is your inability to address any questions or are you now screaming in a tiny little bubble you have created for yourself?

cwolff

07-12-2017, 09:58 AM

What's amazing is your inability to address any questions or are you now screaming in a tiny little bubble you have created for yourself?

I've yet to see a real question. I have read your responses and it's just party line nonsense. I don't believe that you're wanting to talk about this in good faith but would rather just repeat what the Fox News types are putting out there. Once again, I will readily admit that I admire the rights ability to get talking points out to their people and stay on point en masse. It's amazing and alarming all at once.

Neveragain

07-12-2017, 10:04 AM

cwolff

07-12-2017, 10:14 AM

It's not party line to ask why it's ok to have Ukrainian arms dealers hold fund raisers for you but not ok for a private citizen to hold a meeting with a foreigner?

Just looking for some consistency here?

Ya it's party line. Typical defense mechanism the right's running trying to deflect attention anywhere but the rotten apple President we now have. This shit happens all the time, "What about the Death Panels" "It's a death Spiral" "Anonymous sources" "Obama plays golf" "Executive Orders are bad" and on and on and on and it's all just smoke screen wrapped in hypocrisy. I want to hate the politicians for it but the thing is, it's not their fault. Their followers beg to be lied to. Like Sheryl Crow says, "Lie to me, I promise, I'll believe"

Neveragain

07-12-2017, 10:21 AM

Ya it's party line. Typical defense mechanism the right's running trying to deflect attention anywhere but the rotten apple President we now have. This shit happens all the time, "What about the Death Panels" "It's a death Spiral" "Anonymous sources" "Obama plays golf" "Executive Orders are bad" and on and on and on and it's all just smoke screen wrapped in hypocrisy. I want to hate the politicians for it but the thing is, it's not their fault. Their followers beg to be lied to. Like Sheryl Crow says, "Lie to me, I promise, I'll believe"

So....you have nothing and have 0 evidence that any laws have been broken. You're really, really bad at this.

2018 is going to be a massacre.

Tenlaar

07-12-2017, 10:26 AM

So....you have nothing and have 0 evidence that any laws have been broken.

Not even considering legality, do YOU think that it is okay for a presidential candidate to get an offer of damaging information about another candidate from a foreign government and decide to run with the offer and see what they can get out of it, and then deny deny deny it, rather than report this to the FBI or in any other way make it known to the American people?

cwolff

07-12-2017, 10:28 AM

So....you have nothing and have 0 evidence that any laws have been broken. You're really, really bad at this.

2018 is going to be a massacre.

Again you're toeing the party line. This ain't Murder She Wrote. There doesn't have to be a "smoking gun" for impeachment yet you cling to these words as if it's a talisman to keep the bad people away.

Neveragain

07-12-2017, 11:23 AM

Not even considering legality, do YOU think that it is okay for a presidential candidate to get an offer of damaging information about another candidate from a foreign government and decide to run with the offer and see what they can get out of it, and then deny deny deny it, rather than report this to the FBI or in any other way make it known to the American people?

If it's not illegal, I don't care because...it's not illegal.

If this makes you so upset then why are you not screaming at the same high pitched tone about the Clintons doing the exact same fucking thing, I don't recall the Clintons reporting this to the FBI let alone even turning over the servers that got hacked.

Does none of that bother you? None of this happens if Hillary doesn't keep a private server to avoid the Public information act, none of it. I mean you have the DNC fucking over Bernie, which lead to DWS having to step down. You have CNN handing debates questions to Hillary before debates. But holy shit a private citizen held a meeting where nothing gets exchanged and everyone loses their fucking mind. Do you have any idea what kind of precedence that sets for any private citizen that's considering running for office in the future? And we wonder why we can't find any decent candidates, would you ever consider running for office at this point?

Neveragain

07-12-2017, 11:30 AM

Again you're toeing the party line. This ain't Murder She Wrote. There doesn't have to be a "smoking gun" for impeachment yet you cling to these words as if it's a talisman to keep the bad people away.

Of course there doesn't.

The question the Democrats should be asking is "Are we willing to further wreck our credibility with the American people by moving forward on impeachment with extremely questionable evidence?"

We will never see an impeachment process over this and I'm not exactly apposed to moving forward with impeachment. I just don't think the Democrats really want impeachment hearings.

Tenlaar

07-12-2017, 12:48 PM

If it's not illegal, I don't care because...it's not illegal.
You have no interest in morality or doing the right thing for our country? Everything is strictly legal or not?

If this makes you so upset then why are you not screaming at the same high pitched tone about the Clintons doing the exact same fucking thing, I don't recall the Clintons reporting this to the FBI let alone even turning over the servers that got hacked.
I'm not "screaming in a high pitched tone" about anything. Recognize that you are talking to actual individual people, not some nameless mob that you have dubbed "them."

Does none of that bother you? None of this happens if Hillary doesn't keep a private server to avoid the Public information act, none of it. I mean you have the DNC fucking over Bernie, which lead to DWS having to step down. You have CNN handing debates questions to Hillary before debates.

Those are definitely words about things. Unfortunately, we're talking about Donald Trump and the present now, not an ex presidential candidate that you want to use to deflect.

But holy shit a private citizen held a meeting where nothing gets exchanged and everyone loses their fucking mind. Do you have any idea what kind of precedence that sets for any private citizen that's considering running for office in the future? And we wonder why we can't find any decent candidates, would you ever consider running for office at this point?
I would hope the precedent it sets is that you don't try to accept shady aid from foreign governments to win your election. That doesn't seem like such a crazy thing to expect, does it? I think it's wrong for Hillary Clinton, or any Democratic candidate, to do. And it is wrong for Trump or any Republican candidate to do.

I am not afraid to say that I don't think Democrats should be shady pieces of shit, and I don't like it when they are, which is plenty often. Why is it so hard for you to say the same about Republicans?

Neveragain

07-12-2017, 01:14 PM

You have no interest in morality or doing the right thing for our country? Everything is strictly legal or not?

I'm not "screaming in a high pitched tone" about anything. Recognize that you are talking to actual individual people, not some nameless mob that you have dubbed "them."

Those are definitely words about things. Unfortunately, we're talking about Donald Trump and the present now, not an ex presidential candidate that you want to use to deflect.

I would hope the precedent it sets is that you don't try to accept shady aid from foreign governments to win your election. That doesn't seem like such a crazy thing to expect, does it? I think it's wrong for Hillary Clinton, or any Democratic candidate, to do. And it is wrong for Trump or any Republican candidate to do.

I am not afraid to say that I don't think Democrats should be shady pieces of shit, and I don't like it when they are, which is plenty often. Why is it so hard for you to say the same about Republicans?

1. I have plenty of interest in morality, it's why I'm pro-life.

2. You are the nameless mob, I don't know you anymore than I know the other 300+ million people in this country.

3. No we're not talking about Donald Trump, we are talking about his son, a private citizen at the time. How does this work in your mind "Well she wasn't elected I guess there's no need to hand over those private servers that this whole political theater is built around."

4. Were you not paying attention to what I was saying about Republicans during the election? I can't help that the Democrats cheated dude, I can't help that I stayed as neutral as possible during the elections man, I'm sorry that every indicator was telling me that Trump was going to win, I was calling it in February last year man long before this whole Russian bullshit started.

Neveragain

07-12-2017, 01:25 PM

Nobody finds the jelly doughnut if private pyle just locks his fucking footlocker.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5NP8y63Ms4o

Methais

07-12-2017, 01:54 PM

I just was watching CNN

http://cdn.smosh.com/sites/default/files/ftpuploads/bloguploads/laughing-gifs-foolish-human.gif

Tenlaar

07-12-2017, 04:27 PM

1. I have plenty of interest in morality
So what is your stance on members of a political campaign in the US trying to get illicit aid from a foreign government to sway a campaign rather than denying it and reporting those attempts at manipulating the election to the proper authorities? Moral or immoral? You seem to be going out of your way to avoid stating whether you believe this was an acceptable thing, in your mind.

2. You are the nameless mob, I don't know you anymore than I know the other 300+ million people in this country.
You not knowing me does not mean that I am over here shrieking about anything. I am not other people, even if you want to act like I am.

3. No we're not talking about Donald Trump, we are talking about his son, a private citizen at the time. How does this work in your mind "Well she wasn't elected I guess there's no need to hand over those private servers that this whole political theater is built around."
We are talking about Donald Trump's campaign, and what members of his campaign team did during that campaign. Donald Trump's son, son-in-law, and campaign manager meeting with somebody on behalf of Donald Trump's campaign instead of him doing it personally doesn't mean that we're not still talking about Donald Trump and his presidency when we talk about this particular thing. You can talk about Hillary Clinton all you want, I agree that she is a crooked shitbag and also should not have been the President, but no amount of talking about Clinton will change what Trump did or make it acceptable.

4. Were you not paying attention to what I was saying about Republicans during the election? I can't help that the Democrats cheated dude, I can't help that I stayed as neutral as possible during the elections man, I'm sorry that every indicator was telling me that Trump was going to win, I was calling it in February last year man long before this whole Russian bullshit started.
I'm paying attention to the fact that you still can't even admit this is some shady shit and it's not good for the US or it's people.

cwolff

07-12-2017, 04:27 PM

If there was any doubt about the seriousness of Trumps fuck ups, this should put those doubts to bed.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DEd-vFNXgAA856q.jpg

cwolff

07-12-2017, 04:29 PM

I'm paying attention to the fact that you still can't even admit this is some shady shit and it's not good for the US or it's people.

This! It's like some next level mind control Fu going on here.

cwolff

07-14-2017, 10:03 AM

He said this while standing next to the President of France who is Don Jr's age.

President Trump has defended his son's decision to meet with Veselnitskaya, saying "most people would have taken that meeting."
"My son is a wonderful young man. He took a meeting with a Russian lawyer, not a government lawyer but a Russian lawyer," Trump said Thursday in a joint press conference in Paris with French President Emmanuel Macron. "From a practical standpoint most people would have taken that meeting. It's called opposition research or research into your opponent."

Back

07-14-2017, 10:46 AM

cwolff

07-14-2017, 10:57 AM

Trump needs to get his kids out of all this. Donald was elected, not his kids. Yeah yeah he can appoint whoever he wants but this is a shit show. Which other past presidents had their kids so involved at the highest levels?

I bet there will be a whole bunch of new laws created after his presidency. So many precedents that weren't codified in the legal code because we all assumed the President would respect the office will now have to be converted to laws. Congress should be pretty happy to do it though. They love to take power from the Executive.

Is there no rule about nepotism?

~Rocktar~

07-14-2017, 03:57 PM

I bet there will be a whole bunch of new laws created after his presidency. So many precedents that weren't codified in the legal code because we all assumed the President would respect the office will now have to be converted to laws. Congress should be pretty happy to do it though. They love to take power from the Executive.

Is there no rule about nepotism?

Nepotism you say? JFK, Bobby Kennedy, Ted Kennedy ring a bell?

Parkbandit

07-14-2017, 04:48 PM

Nepotism you say? JFK, Bobby Kennedy, Ted Kennedy ring a bell?

THAT DOESN'T COUNT! Those were Democrats...

Tgo01

07-14-2017, 05:46 PM

He said this while standing next to the President of France who is Don Jr's age.

A) So? B) What is the significance of him saying this next to the president of France or his age?

Paradii

07-14-2017, 05:53 PM

THAT DOESN'T COUNT! Those were Democrats...

Pull your head out of your ass for a second, think critically, and then tell us why those cases aren't comparable.

Neveragain

07-14-2017, 06:12 PM

Trump needs to get his kids out of all this. Donald was elected, not his kids. Yeah yeah he can appoint whoever he wants but this is a shit show. Which other past presidents had their kids so involved at the highest levels?

Probably one of your favorite presidents, FDR, is just one example. Sixteen children of Presidents worked in the White House with their fathers according to Doug Wead.

http://time.com/4597015/donald-trump-presidential-children-history/

Parkbandit

07-14-2017, 06:56 PM

Pull your head out of your ass for a second, think critically, and then tell us why those cases aren't comparable.

Because the Kennedy's were Democrats.

Why don't you pull your own ignorant head out of your own ass and next time read.

cwolff

07-14-2017, 08:07 PM

A) So? B) What is the significance of him saying this next to the president of France or his age?

Always trying to dismiss what Junior did diminish what Junior did deflect attention from it make the story go away blah blah blah by saying that he's just a kid. It's a form of spin. He's not explicitly saying anything but he's putting it out there that Don Jr is just a kid, not a big deal ,he'll grow up, innocent mistake of Youth.

and it sounds good. He has great delivery and he's a good salesman. But he's standing next to the president of a whole f****** country at the same age as Little Donny so it kind of ruins the idea that he's just a good kid.

Tgo01

07-14-2017, 08:32 PM

Always trying to dismiss what Junior did diminish what Junior did deflect attention from it make the story go away blah blah blah by saying that he's just a kid. It's a form of spin.

Saying his son is a "wonderful young man" is saying he's "just a kid" and a "form of spin"?

The more "you people" pull this sort of crap outta your ass the more I find myself liking Trump. I was never thrilled with him to begin with but this constant barrage of bullshit is amazing.

Neveragain

07-14-2017, 09:19 PM

Saying his son is a "wonderful young man" is saying he's "just a kid" and a "form of spin"?

The more "you people" pull this sort of crap outta your ass the more I find myself liking Trump. I was never thrilled with him to begin with but this constant barrage of bullshit is amazing.

I'm thrilled to death at this point, this is becoming a libertarians wet dream.

Harder Democrats, harder, don't stop!

cwolff

07-14-2017, 09:28 PM

Saying his son is a "wonderful young man" is saying he's "just a kid" and a "form of spin"?

The more "you people" pull this sort of crap outta your ass the more I find myself liking Trump. I was never thrilled with him to begin with but this constant barrage of bullshit is amazing.

You never been is sales? He's being subtle here but doing great communicating what message he wants to convey

Tgo01

07-14-2017, 09:30 PM

You never been is sales? He's being subtle here but doing great communicating what message he wants to convey

Right. Sure. "My son is a young man."

"Oh so you're saying he's just a kid? Is that what you're saying?! Unless you admit right now that he's a Russian spy douche bag then you've just lost all credibility! RRRREEEEEEEEEE!"

cwolff

07-14-2017, 09:34 PM

Right. Sure. "My son is a young man."

"Oh so you're saying he's just a kid? Is that what you're saying?! Unless you admit right now that he's a Russian spy douche bag then you've just lost all credibility! RRRREEEEEEEEEE!"

He said he was a "good kid" earlier in the denial process

cwolff

07-14-2017, 09:35 PM

I'm thrilled to death at this point, this is becoming a libertarians wet dream.

Harder Democrats, harder, don't stop!

My libertarian friends are like Hannibal from A-team. "I love it when a plan comes together"

Paradii

07-14-2017, 10:06 PM

Because the Kennedy's were Democrats.

Why don't you pull your own ignorant head out of your own ass and next time read.

I am sure you often interpret an individual eventually ceasing to respond to you as an intellectual victory, but the reality of the situation is that you are an insufferable douche. Since you are being purposefully obtuse, the difference is that, although extremely privileged, the Kennedy's achieved their positions through more stomach-able means (e.g., going to law school, getting elected). That can't be said for Trump's progeny, they have very little relevant experience, but placed in positions of perceivable undeserved authority. Are you still going to just play the "but the democrat!" card? This little echo chamber over in the politics folder has definitely spiraled out of control in the recent years, and you seem to think that you can just get away with saying absolute bullshit since the rest of these assclowns are feeding into the little circle jerk. Just wanted to chime in and let you know that I think you a worthless cunt. Best regards!

Shaps

07-14-2017, 11:54 PM

Shaps

07-14-2017, 11:57 PM

And disagreeing with a persons policies is not bigoted, misogynist, racist, homophobic, or any other thing. It's a persons belief or opinion on something, and how laws and the government should govern. If politicians would stop with the damn name calling and demonizing it would be amazing.

I know.. never going to happen and I'm an idiot for hoping.

tyrant-201

07-15-2017, 12:05 AM

I'm glad that actual investigations are bringing information to light. I'm all for applying the law as it should be to whomever, regardless of political party.

That being said.. I really hope the Clinton's get looked at again and properly tried also.

It finally seems that both conservative and liberal people are looking at and starting to become disgusted with our Politicians. I can only hope once whatever happens with Trump shakes out... Democrats are as harsh on their own parties people. Hopefully they now understand the anger the right had towards the Clinton's and all of the scandals, money laundering, bribes, and utter bullshit they've pulled over the past 20+ years.

I know it won't work out that way, and the Left will never examine themselves the way the right does... but one can hope they start applying logic and reason to holding OUR politicians accountable.

I've never understood the mentality of "us" vs. "them" when an official is elected. They should represent ALL of us. WE should not give our politicians so much power to abuse the system. And BOTH sides do it.

Just really fucking sad to watch the citizens of our country fight as they have just because of roughly 600 elected National officials and the games they play to divide us solely for their political gain.

Rant over.

There are more of us who examine the left and are dissatisfied with it than you might think.

I, for one, would fully support an investigation into the Clinton's wrongdoings over the years. Either way, their time in politics seems to be at an end.

I'm through with supporting politicians who sell out their people to the highest bidder. Democrat or Republican alike. Say what you want about Trump, but he's exposed the system for the farce that it is. A lot of people voted for him because they're fed up. A lot of people didn't vote for Hillary because they're fed up. The system hasn't seemed to learn it's lesson though.

Shaps

07-15-2017, 12:23 AM

Androidpk

07-15-2017, 12:24 AM

Agreed Tyrant. Here's to hoping true reform sets in. First thing that would really help IMO.. term limits. Our representatives are supposed to be CITIZEN's as well as our representatives. Not lifetime overseers.

Good start to the discussion. I appreciate your input.

Yeah good luck getting Congress to do that. You really think career politicians are going to give up all that free bacon?

tyrant-201

07-15-2017, 12:29 AM

Yeah good luck getting Congress to do that. You really think career politicians are going to give up all that free bacon?

Naw definitely not. And most of them would never support limits on campaign finance. R or D, a big problem is moneyed interests maintaining a stranglehold on incumbents who are beholden to them.

Archigeek

07-15-2017, 12:36 AM

Naw definitely not. And most of them would never support limits on campaign finance. R or D, a big problem is moneyed interests maintaining a stranglehold on incumbents who are beholden to them.

There are some states that have enacted term limits. State voters can do it, surely Congress won't.

Shaps

07-15-2017, 12:39 AM

Yeah good luck getting Congress to do that. You really think career politicians are going to give up all that free bacon?

Did you miss earlier where I said I was an idiot for hoping? :)

As for getting Congress to do it, if voters really wanted to and... this will be a shock... the Left and the Right continually voted out representatives that didn't vote for term limits it could be done.

But good luck getting voters to do that. :P

Shaps

07-15-2017, 12:40 AM

Naw definitely not. And most of them would never support limits on campaign finance. R or D, a big problem is moneyed interests maintaining a stranglehold on incumbents who are beholden to them.

I still can't believe Hillary spent over 1 BILLION dollars on her campaign. Talk about insanity.

Trump was around 400m right? Somewhere in that range.. but to top a Billion blew my mind.

tyrant-201

07-15-2017, 12:47 AM

I still can't believe Hillary spent over 1 BILLION dollars on her campaign. Talk about insanity.

Trump was around 400m right? Somewhere in that range.. but to top a Billion blew my mind.

Hand-picked by the establishment that didn't give a shit where their actual vote lies.

I wouldn't vote for Trump, but I wouldn't vote for Hillary in a million years either. "Choose the lesser of two evils, and the devil's still gonna win" - Run the Jewels

Neveragain

07-15-2017, 01:01 AM

tyrant-201

07-15-2017, 01:06 AM

This sounds like where I was at 7 or 8 years ago, you are coming along nicely.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CsxhMAnglaE

Yeah, you're the last person here that I aspire to be. You're a shitstain upon humanity. No offense or anything.

time4fun

07-15-2017, 01:11 AM

Did you miss earlier where I said I was an idiot for hoping? :)

As for getting Congress to do it, if voters really wanted to and... this will be a shock... the Left and the Right continually voted out representatives that didn't vote for term limits it could be done.

But good luck getting voters to do that. :P

Term limits aren't the problem (Remember the mess we ended up with after 2010?)- money is.

Elected officials desperately want campaign finance limits- most of them didn't come to Washington to spend 80% of their time fund-raising. The problem is, if you support them, and they DON'T happen- you're toast. Especially after Citizens United- the PTB can unseat you very easily.

The Courts are the only way out, but the GOP screwed that up when they stole a seat from Obama. (And when they nominated Justices who had spent years building the jurisprudence for corporate personhood) Without a liberal majority in SCOTUS, campaign finance won't be reigned in.

Tgo01

07-15-2017, 01:15 AM

Term limits aren't the problem (Remember the mess we ended up with after 2010?)- money is.

Elected officials desperately want campaign finance limits- most of them didn't come to Washington to spend 80% of their time fund-raising. The problem is, if you support them, and they DON'T happen- you're toast. Especially after Citizens United- the PTB can unseat you very easily.

The Courts are the only way out, but the GOP screwed that up when they stole a seat from Obama. (And when they nominated Justices who had spent years building the jurisprudence for corporate personhood) Without a liberal majority in SCOTUS, campaign finance won't be reigned in.

Well it was a good run, everyone. Had what, 5 people in a row all say "Yeah the whole thing is fucked up, fuck both parties!"

Then time4fun had to come along with her partisan bullshit.

"Remember in 2010 when everything got fucked cause of REPUBLICANS?!"

"We almost had the problem solved until the REPUBLICANS fucked everything up!"

Neveragain

07-15-2017, 01:57 AM

Yeah, you're the last person here that I aspire to be. You're a shitstain upon humanity. No offense or anything.

Ooh, so much hate. You act like I fucked your wife. You want to talk about it?

tyrant-201

07-15-2017, 02:04 AM

Ooh, so much hate. You act like I fucked your wife. You want to talk about it?

You aren't worth a response. You get this one as a tiny little gift. Cherish it.

Neveragain

07-15-2017, 02:10 AM

You aren't worth a response. You get this one as a tiny little gift. Cherish it.

What makes you think I want a gift? You already responded. I'm more than happy to work out any problem you may have with me. There must be something that has you so salty.

Neveragain

07-15-2017, 09:35 AM

It really is too bad you have chosen to crawl into a safe space rather than communicate your grievances, I guess it's no surprise though coming from the guy who signs his reputation comments with other peoples names.

If it makes you feel any better, daddy will be here when you finally find the grawel to sit down and hash this out like adults.

:hug2:

Parkbandit

07-15-2017, 09:48 AM

There are more of us who examine the left and are dissatisfied with it than you might think.

I, for one, would fully support an investigation into the Clinton's wrongdoings over the years. Either way, their time in politics seems to be at an end.

I'm through with supporting politicians who sell out their people to the highest bidder. Democrat or Republican alike. Say what you want about Trump, but he's exposed the system for the farce that it is. A lot of people voted for him because they're fed up. A lot of people didn't vote for Hillary because they're fed up. The system hasn't seemed to learn it's lesson though.

Holy fuck.. a political post from you that I completely agree with.

Also, the it's not the system.. it's the people IN the system that haven't learned the lesson though. The Democrats have and will continue to blame Hillary's loss on RUSSIA or COMEY or whatever the reason du jour turns out to be. And the Republicans will continue to squander this opportunity and not do anything because of their continued desire to be loved by the left and not be called "racist" or "sexist" or whatever the "ist" du jour is. They have been literally voting on repealing Obamacare for years now.. and now that they actually have the votes.. they decide to roll out Obamacare 2.0 that will have all the same inherent problems that Obamacare does. It won't pass because of a few in Congress are scared that they won't be re-elected and will have to go out and get real jobs next election.

We need term limits imposed in Congress. You won't clear the swamp if the swamp creatures just keep coming back election after election after election.

Parkbandit

07-15-2017, 09:49 AM

Naw definitely not. And most of them would never support limits on campaign finance. R or D, a big problem is moneyed interests maintaining a stranglehold on incumbents who are beholden to them.

And one of the only other reasons I voted for Trump. He doesn't seem to be beholden to anyone because he has plenty of money.

Methais

07-15-2017, 12:19 PM

Always trying to dismiss what Junior did diminish what Junior did deflect attention from it make the story go away blah blah blah by saying that he's just a kid. It's a form of spin. He's not explicitly saying anything but he's putting it out there that Don Jr is just a kid, not a big deal ,he'll grow up, innocent mistake of Youth.

and it sounds good. He has great delivery and he's a good salesman. But he's standing next to the president of a whole f****** country at the same age as Little Donny so it kind of ruins the idea that he's just a good kid.

So you're saying that the French president isn't a good kid?

Methais

07-15-2017, 12:23 PM

Gelston

07-15-2017, 12:25 PM

This is definitely the most bigoted, mysogynistic, racist, homophobic, + various other -isms & -phobes post ever put on the internet.

aids

Methais

07-15-2017, 12:29 PM

aids

I take my previous post back. Gelston's post is now the most homophobic post ever put on the internet.

tyrant-201

07-15-2017, 01:00 PM

Homophobes!!!111one

Androidpk

07-15-2017, 01:08 PM

Term limits aren't the problem (Remember the mess we ended up with after 2010?)- money is.

Elected officials desperately want campaign finance limits- most of them didn't come to Washington to spend 80% of their time fund-raising. The problem is, if you support them, and they DON'T happen- you're toast. Especially after Citizens United- the PTB can unseat you very easily.

The Courts are the only way out, but the GOP screwed that up when they stole a seat from Obama. (And when they nominated Justices who had spent years building the jurisprudence for corporate personhood) Without a liberal majority in SCOTUS, campaign finance won't be reigned in.

Establishment Democrats don't want campaign finance reform either.

Latrinsorm

07-15-2017, 03:06 PM

Trump needs to get his kids out of all this. Donald was elected, not his kids. Yeah yeah he can appoint whoever he wants but this is a shit show. Which other past presidents had their kids so involved at the highest levels?David Eisenhower and Julie Nixon took a lot of stick from the counterculture movement. I don't know how official their capacities were though.
And disagreeing with a persons policies is not bigoted, misogynist, racist, homophobic, or any other thing. It's a persons belief or opinion on something, and how laws and the government should govern. If politicians would stop with the damn name calling and demonizing it would be amazing.At the same time, not all people who disagree with your take on politics are immediately calling you bigoted, misogynist, racist, homophobe, or any other thing. At this point, people playing the race card card far outnumber those playing the race card.
Agreed Tyrant. Here's to hoping true reform sets in. First thing that would really help IMO.. term limits. Our representatives are supposed to be CITIZEN's as well as our representatives. Not lifetime overseers.Supposed by whom? Jefferson, Adams, Madison, these men were all lifetime politicians. Sure we had Washington and Hamilton in there putting us on the right path of aggressive federal control and implied powers, but they were in no way the majority. That's why we screwed around with the farce of states' rights for so long.
Also, the it's not the system.. it's the people IN the system that haven't learned the lesson though. The Democrats have and will continue to blame Hillary's loss on RUSSIA or COMEY or whatever the reason du jour turns out to be. And the Republicans will continue to squander this opportunity and not do anything because of their continued desire to be loved by the left and not be called "racist" or "sexist" or whatever the "ist" du jour is. They have been literally voting on repealing Obamacare for years now.. and now that they actually have the votes.. they decide to roll out Obamacare 2.0 that will have all the same inherent problems that Obamacare does. It won't pass because of a few in Congress are scared that they won't be re-elected and will have to go out and get real jobs next election.The lengths you will go to avoid realizing that you've been played for seven years. They voted to repeal Obamacare then because they knew it was an empty gesture that you and people like you would gobble up. They won't vote to repeal Obamacare now because they're grown ups and so know there are real consequences. You really think Marco Rubio has now or has ever wanted to be loved by the left? rofl

cwolff

07-16-2017, 08:35 AM

I'm a news junkie and didn't even realize people protested at the women's open. Thank you Donald. Appreciate the info.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DE2fXRyVoAAJd5z.jpg:large

Methais

07-16-2017, 12:49 PM

Establishment Democrats don't want campaign finance reform either.

NO ITS REPUBLICANS FAULT AND DEMOCRATS NEVER DO ANYTHING WRONG UNLESS YOU'RE A MISOGYNIST!!!!!8

Methais

07-16-2017, 12:53 PM

I'm a news junkie and didn't even realize people protested at the women's open. Thank you Donald. Appreciate the info.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DE2fXRyVoAAJd5z.jpg:large

But how can this be? I thought Trump hated women? There must be a hidden message to Putin in that tweet. This tweet is nothing but more proof of Trump colluding with Russia. Good luck getting through this one. This is going to be it for Trump for real this time so get ready for President Pence any day now. I used to teach a Twitter class so I know what I'm talking about.

Ardwen

07-16-2017, 01:16 PM

There's a not at all hidden its at his course making him millions, not to mention we are paying the club for all the Staffers and Secret Service renting rooms from him etc etc. How many Women's golf tournies do you think he has ever attended at properties he doesn't own?

Parkbandit

07-17-2017, 10:56 AM

There must be a hidden message to Putin in that tweet. This tweet is nothing but more proof of Trump colluding with Russia.

Oh shit! YOU ARE RIGHT!!!!!!!!!!

8748

Wrathbringer

07-17-2017, 11:20 AM

Tisket

07-17-2017, 02:58 PM

There's a not at all hidden its at his course

Your usage of the English language is astounding.

cwolff

07-18-2017, 12:20 PM

WTF. It's like this guy isn't even American.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DFBWBFlUAAACG8C.jpg:large

Fortybox

07-18-2017, 02:05 PM

WTF. It's like this guy isn't even American.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DFBWBFlUAAACG8C.jpg:large

Love that constitution when it meets your needs huh?

cwolff

07-18-2017, 02:14 PM

Nice quote. He should keep it.

Donald J. Trump‏

@realDonaldTrump

Leadership: Whatever happens, you're responsible. If it doesn't happen, you're responsible.
12:01 PM - 8 Nov 2013

Savageheart

07-18-2017, 03:16 PM

The Trump Obama era twitter feed never happened. #Fake

cwolff

07-18-2017, 09:13 PM

Dayum, trump is a little bitch. I bet he stroked Vlad's manhood under the table with this little fingers.

Developing now from The Washington Post:
Trump and Putin had a previously undisclosed hour-long meeting at the Group of 20 summit in Germany.
The second meeting, unreported at the time, took place at a dinner for G20 leaders, a senior administration official said. Halfway through the meal, President Trump left his seat to occupy an empty chair next to Russian President Vladimir Putin. Trump was alone, and Putin was attended only by his official interpreter.

cwolff

07-18-2017, 09:57 PM

You had 52 people, you had 4 nos. No, we might have had another one someone in there. But the vote would have been if you look at it, 48 to 4. That’s a pretty impressive vote by any standard, and yet you have a vote of 48 to 4 or something like that, and you need more.

It's so impressive. They got 92% of 52%.

Ya baby, 60% of the time, it works every time.

cwolff

07-19-2017, 04:13 AM

Not all those who wander are lost.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DFFVauFUIAEcWp8.jpg:large

time4fun

07-19-2017, 12:16 PM

Not all those who wander are lost.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DFFVauFUIAEcWp8.jpg:large

That made me crack up.

time4fun

07-19-2017, 08:50 PM

Trump basically said every cringe-worthy thing you can imagine in the NYT Interview tonight, but among the worst:

Describing a newly disclosed informal conversation he had with President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia during a dinner of world leaders in Germany this month, Mr. Trump said they talked for about 15 minutes, mostly about “pleasantries.” But Mr. Trump did say that they talked “about adoption.”

That previously undisclosed meeting (which by all other acocunts lasted about an hour) between him and Putin (with absolutely no other American there to document the meeting) was about US/Russian sanctions.

It's almost like he and Putin had an arrangement or something.

drauz

07-19-2017, 08:55 PM

Trump basically said every cringe-worthy thing you can imagine in the NYT Interview tonight, but among the worst:

That previously undisclosed meeting (which by all other acocunts lasted about an hour) between him and Putin (with absolutely no other American there to document the meeting) was about US/Russian sanctions.

It's almost like he and Putin had an arrangement or something.

How long do they have to disclose these meetings?

cwolff

07-20-2017, 12:07 AM

Neveragain

07-20-2017, 12:13 AM

https://twitter.com/Scout_Finch/status/887791141839568896

You've got to check this out. trump desperate to be bff's with vlad. Making eye contact across the table and pointing the finger like "it's you and me bro" with a little fist pump at the end.

How could this even be viewed as a bad thing? The two countries that have the capability to destroy the face of the earth and their leaders are getting along and we are bitching about it?

The left has officially lost it's fucking mind.

Tgo01

07-20-2017, 12:15 AM

https://twitter.com/Scout_Finch/status/887791141839568896

You've got to check this out. trump desperate to be bff's with vlad. Making eye contact across the table and pointing the finger like "it's you and me bro" with a little fist pump at the end.

Is Trump even doing that to Putin? Trump's gaze looks like it's farther down the table than where Putin is.

cwolff

07-20-2017, 12:19 AM

How could this even be viewed as a bad thing? The two countries that have the capability to destroy the face of the earth and their leaders are getting along and we are bitching about it?

The left has officially lost it's fucking mind.

It ain't a left right thing. You're making some cold war argument for appeasing putin that is not relevant.

cwolff

07-20-2017, 12:20 AM

Is Trump even doing that to Putin? Trump's gaze looks like it's farther down the table than where Putin is.

Yes it's putin and putin nods his head to acknowledge trumps plea for attention.

Tgo01

07-20-2017, 12:22 AM

Yes it's putin and putin nods his head to acknowledge trumps plea for attention.

Putin doesn't even look like he's looking at Trump either.

Why are we looking at such a cropped image? Because RUSSIA!

cwolff

07-20-2017, 12:25 AM

maybe there's a waiter behind Putin and he's trying to signal for more of that good german dinner roll.

Neveragain

07-20-2017, 12:25 AM

It ain't a left right thing. You're making some cold war argument for appeasing putin that is not relevant.

It is a left thing, only an idiot wouldn't want these two leaders to get along. I'm not willing to risk a war with Russia because Clinton broke the fucking law.

drauz

07-20-2017, 12:26 AM

cwolff

07-20-2017, 12:28 AM

Looks more like hes saying "want to give me a BJ?"

He's saying "you, Me, Later" make handjob motion and if you look closely you can see trumps tongue pushing against the inside of his cheek in time with the fist pump in the universal symbol for BJ

cwolff

07-20-2017, 12:29 AM

TG, check out Melania's head. She turns to see who Putin is nodding at and lo and hehold, it's the donald.

Neveragain

07-20-2017, 12:29 AM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Rha6Wamfp0

What a fuckn' joke.

drauz

07-20-2017, 12:31 AM

He's saying "you, Me, Later" make handjob motion and if you look closely you can see trumps tongue pushing against the inside of his cheek in time with the fist pump in the universal symbol for BJ

Exactly. See, now you're thinking outside the box.

tyrant-201

07-20-2017, 12:58 AM

It is a left thing, only an idiot wouldn't want these two leaders to get along. I'm not willing to risk a war with Russia because Clinton broke the fucking law.

Neveragain in 2002 "Don't bomb Saddam. Only an idiot wouldn't want these leaders to get along. I'm not willing to risk a war with Iraq because Gore is a fucking global warming advocate."

tyrant-201

07-20-2017, 01:00 AM

TG, check out Melania's head. She turns to see who Putin is nodding at and lo and hehold, it's the donald.

Donald enjoys being peed on. Why wouldn't he enjoy being the cuckold?

cwolff

07-20-2017, 07:50 AM

We'd be so much better off with Hillary as President. At least she has her shit together.

‘It hurts not having ambassadors,’ says US Army commander in Europe (http://www.politico.eu/article/it-hurts-not-having-ambassadors-says-us-army-commander-in-europe/?cmpid=sf)
‘Now is a bad time not to have an ambassador in Germany,’ says Lieutenant General Ben Hodges.
By David M. Herszenhorn 7/19/17, 9:22 PM CET Updated 7/20/17, 1:26 PM CET
BEZMER AIR BASE, Bulgaria — The Trump administration’s slow pace in appointing ambassadors, which has left major posts vacant around the world, is hampering the ability to carry out American policy, the top U.S. Army commander in Europe said.

After six months, Trump has yet to nominate ambassadors to:
-France
-Germany
-The European Union
-Austria
-Denmark
-Finland
-Ireland
-Hungary
-Luxembourg
-The Netherlands
-Norway
-Spain
-Sweden
-Switzerland
And that's just Europe!

cwolff

07-20-2017, 08:51 AM

The greatest speech ever given by a U.S. President on foreign soil. :wtf:

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DFLfZemW0AAhYyf.jpg:large

Latrinsorm

07-20-2017, 07:30 PM

It is a left thing, only an idiot wouldn't want these two leaders to get along. I'm not willing to risk a war with Russia because Clinton broke the fucking law.I read excerpts of the NYT interview, including the "I mean, [the Russians] won five wars where the armies that went against them froze to death. It’s pretty amazing. So, we’re having a good time. The economy is doing great." segue, and this is the most severe non sequitur I have seen today. Bravo, Ne'eragain!

~Rocktar~

07-20-2017, 08:45 PM

We'd be so much better off with Hillary as President. At least she has her shit together.

After six months, Trump has yet to nominate ambassadors to:
-France
-Germany
-The European Union
-Austria
-Denmark
-Finland
-Ireland
-Hungary
-Luxembourg
-The Netherlands
-Norway
-Spain
-Sweden
-Switzerland
And that's just Europe!

He nominated an ambassador to the EU, why does he need to have one to each of the member serfdoms? Just because they may not like the guy shouldn't give them a say really.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/03/03/donald-trumps-next-ambassador-brussels-says-application-could/

Methais

07-21-2017, 01:17 PM

Not all those who wander are lost.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DFFVauFUIAEcWp8.jpg:large

Obama had a super majority. Trump does not.

I read excerpts of the NYT interview, including the "I mean, [the Russians] won five wars where the armies that went against them froze to death. It’s pretty amazing. So, we’re having a good time. The economy is doing great." segue, and this is the most severe non sequitur I have seen today. Bravo, Ne'eragain!

https://i.imgur.com/gKAwlSp.gif

cwolff

07-21-2017, 01:22 PM

Obama had a super majority. Trump does not.

Methais you ignorant slut. <sigh> I'd tell you you're wrong but then you'd lose the opportunity to figure it out for yourself

Savageheart

07-21-2017, 02:15 PM

The Four Horsemen of the Idiocracy do nothing put shitpost, gaslight, and high five each other.

TG0 and PK have well developed thoughts at least but the rest meh, then Tisket comes in for the reach around at the end.

In her defense I hear it's one hell of a handy.

Methais

07-21-2017, 02:20 PM

Methais you ignorant slut. <sigh> I'd tell you you're wrong but then I'd have to prove it!

Yes, I can understand your dilemma.

Latrinsorm

07-21-2017, 07:07 PM

Obama had a super majority. Trump does not.The super majority is only relevant to break a filibuster. The Democrats have filibustered 0 bills in 2017. Nicolas Cage's hair remains a bird. Your argument is invalid.

Tgo01

07-21-2017, 07:19 PM

The super majority is only relevant to break a filibuster. The Democrats have filibustered 0 bills in 2017.

They are filibustering just about every damn person Trump nominates to a position, then McConnell has to call for cloture, which then calls for 30 hours of "debate" until a straight up/down vote can be called.

The Democrats are filibustering the shit out of the Senate right now.

It's also worth noting that even though the Republicans threw hissy fits every time Obama got to nominate a supreme court justice they NEVER filibustered the process and most even ended up voting for said nominee. Contrast that to the Democrats who did filibuster Trump's first nominee...but facts are for suckers!

cwolff

07-22-2017, 03:10 PM

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DFVjOLHXYAMV0QV.jpg

So far? Either he's planning a crime spree or he's saying that so far no one's been able to hang him on the crime's he's already committed.

cwolff

07-22-2017, 03:18 PM

They are filibustering just about every damn person Trump nominates to a position, then McConnell has to call for cloture, which then calls for 30 hours of "debate" until a straight up/down vote can be called.

The Democrats are filibustering the shit out of the Senate right now.

It's also worth noting that even though the Republicans threw hissy fits every time Obama got to nominate a supreme court justice they NEVER filibustered the process and most even ended up voting for said nominee. Contrast that to the Democrats who did filibuster Trump's first nominee...but facts are for suckers!

President Donald Trump is lashing out at Democrats for allegedly stalling his appointments and agenda, but it’s his own administration that is frequently sitting on the necessary paperwork for nominees.

The tweet seemed straightforward enough. President Trump, in the wake of an apparent terror attack on London, opened his Twitter app and sent out one of his signature screeds. He blamed Democrats for the lack of Ambassadors—such as the one in London—to represent Washington during times of crisis.
“Dems are taking forever to approve my people, including Ambassadors,” the President tweeted. “They are nothing but OBSTRUCTIONISTS! Want approvals.”
Setting aside the fact that his fellow Republicans control the Senate, there remains a very large problem here: the White House has not nominated anyone for the job in London.

President Trump accused Senate Democrats of slow-walking his nominees, but his blame is misplaced. It's the president who is lagging behind his predecessors in naming candidates for key government posts during his first five months in the office.

Trump has so far nominated 110 people for 559 positions, fewer nominations than each of the last four presidents, according to the nonpartisan Partnership for Public Service. By comparison, President Obama had selected 252 nominees by early June 2009.

President Trump’s Cabinet secretaries are growing exasperated at how slowly the White House is moving to fill hundreds of top-tier posts, warning that the vacancies are hobbling efforts to oversee agency operations and promote the president’s agenda, according to administration officials, lawmakers and lobbyists.

The Senate has confirmed 26 of Trump’s picks for his Cabinet and other top posts. But for 530 other vacant senior-level jobs requiring Senate confirmation, the president has advanced just 37 nominees, according to data tracked by The Washington Post and the nonpartisan Partnership for Public Service’s Center for Presidential Transition.

Don't blame the dems. That's dishonest af.

Tgo01

07-22-2017, 03:28 PM

President Donald Trump is lashing out at Democrats for allegedly stalling his appointments and agenda, but it’s his own administration that is frequently sitting on the necessary paperwork for nominees.

Let me guess, blackmail news?

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/06/01/trumps-nominees-have-already-faced-a-large-number-of-cloture-votes/

Less than five months into Trump’s tenure, 25 of his executive and judicial nominees have been the subjects of votes on cloture – the Senate term for limiting debate and moving a bill, nominee or other issue to a final up-or-down vote. That’s more than have occurred during the entire term of all but one Congress since 1949, when the Senate first allowed cloture to be moved on nominations, and Trump has yet to nominate people to fill hundreds of other executive-branch jobs.

The rest of your post is just distraction. I see you are studying well at tiem4fun's feet.

~Rocktar~

07-22-2017, 03:40 PM

Don't blame the dems. That's dishonest af.

It's not dishonest to blame then for what they are doing. It is also bad that there are not appointments for every post that is open. I would have had lists ready for everything on day one. That is what a transition team is for.

cwolff

07-22-2017, 03:45 PM

It's not dishonest to blame then for what they are doing. It is also bad that there are not appointments for every post that is open. I would have had lists ready for everything on day one. That is what a transition team is for.

On this we agree. Do you think it's because he didn't expect to win so he wasn't prepared?

time4fun

07-22-2017, 03:49 PM

time4fun

07-22-2017, 03:50 PM

It's not dishonest to blame then for what they are doing. It is also bad that there are not appointments for every post that is open. I would have had lists ready for everything on day one. That is what a transition team is for.

They're not filibustering any nominees.

No one has since 2013. (Except SCOTUS, though the GOP sure fixed that)

Tgo01

07-22-2017, 04:05 PM

As usual, you're an idiot.

There's been no Senate filibuster of non-SCOTUS Executive Branch nominees since 2013.

But keep sticking to your sources Tgo. They're really doing a great job for you.

Do you know what cloture means?

cwolff

07-22-2017, 05:35 PM

time4fun

07-22-2017, 06:22 PM

Do you know what cloture means?

Yes, and apparenty that makes one of us.

Speaking of which:

They are filibustering just about every damn person Trump nominates to a position, then McConnell has to call for cloture, which then calls for 30 hours of "debate" until a straight up/down vote can be called.

Please, list the examples of all of the Trump nominees (non-SCOTUS) who have been filibustered by Democrats. Apparently it's just about all of them. Tell you what- you can just give me a couple.

I eagerly await your list.

time4fun

07-22-2017, 06:43 PM

WaPo article about possible outcomes of Mueller investigation (https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/wp/2017/07/21/this-presidency-cant-be-saved-its-all-downhill-from-here/?utm_term=.9118817de905). There is the possibility that Mueller finds no evidence of wrongdoing and trump is completely exonerated. Other than that, we have a WH in tatters and stalled republican agenda.

This article about sums things up.

Anyone who is still clinging to some hope that Mueller's probe will exonorate Trump and his campaign is fooling themselves. Based on just what we've seen publicly, we've got clear obstruction of justice (that just doesn't seem to end), failing to disclose critical foreign contacts on various security forms (felonies when done intentionally), failure to register as foreign agents, and a lot of conspiracy charges.

And that's the low hanging fruit.

It is clear at this point that the Trump campaign worked with the Russian government to some extent (though we don't know all of the details right now), and that they went to great lengths to cover that fact up.

This either ends in a lot of people in jail or a series of constitutional crises more extreme than anything our country has ever seen.

SHAFT

07-22-2017, 10:34 PM

http://i184.photobucket.com/albums/x176/shaft4783/67347F3D-F1ED-454E-8F2B-F87014E5D054.jpg (http://s184.photobucket.com/user/shaft4783/media/67347F3D-F1ED-454E-8F2B-F87014E5D054.jpg.html)

Tgo01

07-22-2017, 11:57 PM

Yes, and apparenty that makes one of us.

Clearly you don't since I already linked to an article stating that cloture has already been used the second highest number of times of any entire session of Senate, and we're only 6 months into this current session. Oh yeah, and cloture is a call to END A FILIBUSTER.

I eagerly await your list.

I've already linked to it, Miss "DURRRRRR! NO ONE LINKS SOURCES CEPT ME!!!! HURRR DURRRR!"

BigWorm

07-23-2017, 12:08 AM

Dude... the filibuster for cabinet nominees hasn't existed since 2013.

Tgo01

07-23-2017, 12:13 AM

Dude... the filibuster for cabinet nominees hasn't existed since 2013.

Filibusters still exist in the senate for nominees, it now only requires 51 votes to invoke cloture instead of 60.

time4fun

07-23-2017, 12:25 AM

Dude... the filibuster for cabinet nominees hasn't existed since 2013.

Don't bother. He reads these articles, doesn't understand them, and then digs in and refuses to admit he doesn't know what he's talking about.

He's not wrong that there are stalling tactics that have been employed by the Dems for some of Trump's nominees. He just doesn't completely understand how this all works.

BigWorm

07-23-2017, 12:48 AM

Filibusters still exist in the senate for nominees, it now only requires 51 votes to invoke cloture instead of 60.

That's the same number of votes needed to confirm a nominee. Requiring 51 votes for cloture gets rid of the filibuster, which is parliamentary maneuver to prevent a vote when you don't have enough votes to block a majority vote from passing, but do have enough to prevent the vote for cloture from passing. When the number needed is the same (e.g. the House of Representatives), a filibuster is not possible.

Tgo01

07-23-2017, 12:49 AM

Don't bother. He reads these articles, doesn't understand them, and then digs in and refuses to admit he doesn't know what he's talking about.

He's not wrong that there are stalling tactics that have been employed by the Dems for some of Trump's nominees. He just doesn't completely understand how this all works.

Like I said before, even if I had a thousand years I could never dream up such a comedy of horrors such as yourself.

I correctly explain the CURRENT (as in today) filibuster and cloture procedure and you proceed to tell me I don't know what I'm talking about, but then agree that Democrats are engaging in stalling tactics (OTHERWISE KNOWN AS FILIBUSTERING) and then again tell me I don't understand how it all works.

You might want to see a doctor about your rapidly mutating Trump Derangement Syndrome, it's making you gaslight at a pace never before seen in mankind.

Tgo01

07-23-2017, 12:52 AM

That's the same number of votes needed to confirm a nominee. Requiring 51 votes for cloture gets rid of the filibuster, which is parliamentary maneuver to prevent a vote when you don't have enough votes to block a majority vote from passing, but do have enough to prevent the vote for cloture from passing. When the number needed is the same (e.g. the House of Representatives), a filibuster is not possible.

No, a filibuster is a stalling tactic. The senate just took the filibuster to absurd lengths by allowing a senator to just simply say they are filibustering and that's enough to stall the process pretty much forever until cloture is invoked. The rules were changed for nominees so only 51 votes is required for cloture instead of 60, but filibustering still slows the entire process down and gums up the work of the senate, even if cloture is invoked. Cloture just means a filibuster can't go on forever, but a filibuster still serves the original purpose, which is to slow everything down.

BigWorm

07-23-2017, 01:07 AM

Tgo01

07-23-2017, 01:19 AM

Hmm, I guess time4fun is right that you really don't understand.

Jesus. Fucking. Christ. Go to the senate's website yourself, it's explained exactly how I explained it. I didn't know your Trump Derangement Syndrome had reached this high of a level too.

If you don't see any difference between entirely preventing a vote from taking place and delaying a vote by a few hours, then you definitely don't understand.

The process hasn't changed at all, just the number of votes required to invoke cloture has changed.

Before 2013:

Senator: I am filibustering.

Senate: GROAN! Let's see if we have enough votes for cloture, we need 60.

After 2013:

Senator: I am filibustering.

Senate: GROAN! Let's see if we have enough votes for cloture, we need 51.

Other than the number of votes required IT'S THE EXACT SAME FUCKING PROCESS. I don't know how else to explain this to you, do you need me to draw stick figures or something?

It is pretty obvious that the filibuster doesn't exist when you look at Gorsuch's nomination.

You mean the supreme court nomination that was filibustered and even the Republicans didn't filibuster justices during Obama's time in office?

Pretty clear the so called "filibusters" had zero effect on the actual confirmation.

Filibuster is just a stalling tactic, and that's exactly what the Democrats accomplished with Gorsuch, not sure why you would use him as an example.

There is nothing the Democratic minority can do to prevent a united bloc of R votes from confirming anyone Trump nominates.

Did I say the Democrats could "prevent" a nominee from being confirmed? No, please, go back through all of my posts and find for me exactly where I said that. After you fail in such mission I eagerly look forward to your apology.

BigWorm

07-23-2017, 01:34 AM

Steve

07-23-2017, 01:46 AM

You have successfully proven that you have no idea what filibuster means. I know you think it is cool to use big words you don't understand, but you can just say "stall" instead of trying to apply it to the current situation where it doesn't apply.

For anyone that is unsure, to keep the conversation going smoothly, I'll remind everyone what filibuster is in layman's terms. It was an old old store where you could go and rent individual netflix titles. It went out of business in the mid 2000s. Legends say that if you say it three times, a netflix that you rented in the 90s will come back and the filibuster ghost will demand $140 for you to buy it.

Hi. I'm Steve.

Tgo01

07-23-2017, 01:55 AM

You have successfully proven that you have no idea what filibuster means. I know you think it is cool to use big words you don't understand, but you can just say "stall" instead of trying to apply it to the current situation where it doesn't apply.

It's okay, BigWorm, I didn't expect you to actually admit you were wrong. We all know you're not that mature.

time4fun

07-23-2017, 02:10 AM

No, a filibuster is a stalling tactic. The senate just took the filibuster to absurd lengths by allowing a senator to just simply say they are filibustering and that's enough to stall the process pretty much forever until cloture is invoked. The rules were changed for nominees so only 51 votes is required for cloture instead of 60, but filibustering still slows the entire process down and gums up the work of the senate, even if cloture is invoked. Cloture just means a filibuster can't go on forever, but a filibuster still serves the original purpose, which is to slow everything down.

Okay, let me save you from yourself once again.

First- there's a difference between "a" filibuster and "the" filibuster. When we're discussing the Senate nomination process, we're talking about "the" filibuster. And, as has been pointed out many times, there is no longer such a thing when it comes to nominations in the Senate.

Secondy, you seem to be completely confused as to how the delays are actually happening (as well as how often they're happening...and why). The delay tactics being used by the Democrats have literally nothing to do with the filibuster. You are correct that Dems are requiring cloture votes for many nominees (about 50-60% of them), but you are incorrect to say that it's being done on virtually all of them. Technically, they're just requiring what's theoretically always required (but in reality used to be very rare for nominations...prior to Repubican obstructionism under Obama) And the failure to yield back for the full 30 hours afterwards is happening with only a fraction of the nominees they're requiring cloture on. The delays at this stage are being accomplished through various means (like not showing up to committee meetings) that I don't think you actually understand. (But also don't really need to)

So we're clear- Republicans were far worse in the early Obama days than Democrats are being right now. And your entire argument is making it seem like Democrats are doing it just to be spiteful (which was what Republicans were- by their own admission- doing to Obama).

Democrats have been protesting the secretive health bill process Repubicans have been engaged in- refusing to allow Democrats into the room when the bills were being debated and designed and refusing any sort of public hearings. Democrats have explicitly told McConnell that if Republicans stopped being so secretive about the health care bill and stopped cutting Democrats out of the entire process, they'd stop slowing down nominations.

But, of course, McConnell refused. And, of course, Trump has submitted fewer nominations (https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/07/17/us/politics/trump-appointments.html?_r=0) than any other modern President at this time in their Presidency. By this point in Obama's Presidency, 78% of positions had been formally nominated or announced. Trump, meanwhile, is at 38%.

Trump's nominees have only taken 9 days longer than Obama's to get confirmed.

So if you're hanging out trying to feel bad for Republicans- get over yourself. They designed these tactics and used them with much more force than Democrats are.

And, by the same token, no one should feel bad for the Democrats. They opened this nuclear option pandora's box, and now they're paying the price for it. What the GOP did with SCOTUS nominees was FAR worse, but they wouldn't have felt emboldened to do it if Democrats hadn't childishly set the stage for it a few years back.

BigWorm

07-23-2017, 02:13 AM

Sorry, Tgo01, but it's not ok that you don't know what words mean and don't read the sources you link.

Tgo01

07-23-2017, 02:21 AM

First- there's a difference between "a" filibuster and "the" filibuster.

You seriously just went there, didn't you?

And, as has been pointed out many times, there is no longer such a thing when it comes to nominations in the Senate.

Except, there is. Hence why cloture has been invoked so many times so far this year. Answer me one simple question, time4dipshit, what happens if a senator filibusters a nominee and 51 votes aren't reached to end cloture? Does the entire senate still vote on the nominee? It's like you're trying to have it both ways because you realize what a fool you have made of yourself but you can't just admit that a dumb Republican owned you, yet again.

You are correct that Dems are requiring cloture votes for many nominees (about 50-60% of them), but you are incorrect to say that it's being done on virtually all of them.

time4fun going for those easy semantic "wins" again! HURRAY! Enjoy them easy "wins", time4fun.

And the failure to yield back for the full 30 hours afterwards is happening with only a fraction of the nominees they're requiring cloture on.

"So the Democrats are slowing things down with filibusters as you said, but not as much as they could be so therefore you're still wrong! <insert 10 posts of HAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHHAHAHAHAH>"

This is the left's "intellectual" of the PC.

So we're clear- Republicans were far worse in the early Obama days than Democrats are being right now.

"BUT MOM! THEY STARTED IT!"

And your entire argument is making it seem like Democrats are doing it just to be spiteful

What's your explanation then? Oh, let me guess, they are "saving" us from a Russian stooge implanting more Russian spies in our government, right?

Trump's nominees have only taken 9 days longer than Obama's to get confirmed.

"But Democrats aren't slowing things down as much as they could be so your entire point is still wrong! <insert another 10 posts of HAHAHAHHHHAHHHHAHA here.>"

I mean, wow. Thanks, time4fun. You owned yourself better than I ever could.

cwolff

07-24-2017, 10:12 AM

Did you see Mooch use an anonymous source to support this claim, then out his source as the President. God help us from these clowns. From the mouth of Putin, to Trump, to the American People. Does the US IC think Russia can hack us and we'd never know because they're just too good?

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DFeQwVNXcAQ4ahe.jpg

Tgo01

07-24-2017, 10:14 AM

cwolff

07-24-2017, 11:35 AM

Here's the transcript.

"You know, somebody said to me yesterday — I won't tell you who — that if the Russians actually hacked this situation and spilled out those e-mails, you would have never seen it," Scaramucci told "State of the Union" host Jake Tapper.

"You would have never had any evidence of them, meaning that they're super confident in their deception skills and hacking," Scaramucci continued. "My point is, all of the information isn't on the table yet. But here's what I know about the president —"

"Well, wait, wait, wait," Tapper interjected.

"Let me finish. Let me finish," Scaramucci said, before letting Tapper cut in.

"Well, you're making a lot of assertions here," Tapper said. "I don't know who this anonymous person is that said, if the Russians had actually done it, we wouldn't have been able to detect it, but it is the unanimous —"

"How about it was — how about it was the president, Jake?" Scaramucci said. "I talked to him yesterday. He called me from Air Force One. And he basically said to me, 'Hey, you know, this is —maybe they did it. Maybe they didn't do it'."

So it goes like this: Putin tells trump, Trump tell Mooch, Mooch tells the nation on Tappers show by clumsily trying to cite an anonymous source.

Tgo01

07-24-2017, 11:47 AM

Here's the transcript.

So it goes like this: Putin tells trump, Trump tell Mooch, Mooch tells the nation on Tappers show by clumsily trying to cite an anonymous source.

Oh. So?

"Clumsily" citing an anonymous source? He "outed" his source within a span of a few seconds.

cwolff

07-24-2017, 11:49 AM

Oh. So?

"Clumsily" citing an anonymous source? He "outed" his source within a span of a few seconds.

Ya, Clumsy.

Wrathbringer

07-24-2017, 11:50 AM

the retarded love fest between time4dung and cwolff has been thoroughly nauseating this early in the morning.

cwolff

07-24-2017, 11:53 AM

the retarded love fest between time4dung and cwolff has been thoroughly nauseating this early in the morning.

I wonder about you. Are you an adult? Do you have a disability? It seems that you like to participate but never have anything to say. You're neg reps are always vulgar and childish. It's got me curious.

Wrathbringer

07-24-2017, 11:58 AM

I wonder about you. Are you an adult? Do you have a disability? It seems that you like to participate but never have anything to say. You're neg reps are always vulgar and childish. It's got me curious.

Your.

cwolff

07-24-2017, 03:25 PM

Are the rats beginning to leave this sinking ship. I wonder if trump will take note and change his behavior.

Asked why Republicans aren't defending the President, Ryan stressed that Mueller, a former FBI director under the George W. Bush and Barack Obama administrations, is "anything but" a biased partisan.
"Remember, Bob Mueller is a Republican who was appointed by a Republican, who served in the Republican administration and crossed over, I mean, and stayed on until his term ended. But -- I don't think many people are saying Bob Mueller is a person who is a biased partisan. He's really sort of anything but," the speaker said during a radio appearance on "The Jay Weber Show."

Sessions "made the right decision under the rules of the Justice Department" in recusing himself from the investigation, Giuliani told CNN on Monday after landing at Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport.

Executing an idiosyncratic about-face, the White House suggested Sunday that the president would be willing to accept new legislation limiting his authority to lift sanctions on Russia, following a cross-party revolt over Donald Trump’s concerning reluctance to chastise Vladimir Putin for meddling in the 2016 election. Currently, the decision to lift sanctions leveled by the executive branch reside solely within the White House, and presidents from both parties have typically resisted Congress weighing in on such matters, as it curbs their ability to conduct foreign policy. The West Wing had previously resisted the sanctions bill, working behind the scenes to weaken its strictures on Trump’s power.

~Rocktar~

07-24-2017, 09:20 PM

On this we agree. Do you think it's because he didn't expect to win so he wasn't prepared?

I don't know. I would tend to blame his campaign chief and then the transition team leadership because there is a time between winning and being sworn in where you can dig up lists of loads of people to fill everything. It's not like there aren't a lot of qualified applicants and people clamoring for cushy government appointments. Over all, I have to say his chief of staff has been a nightmare and the White House staff has been a clusterfuck from the word go. Leaks, lock everything down, fire every person that was there before you and replace them all in short order. I would have gotten rid of every possible person that worked under Obama in nearly every WH position and then also in nearly every department in the Government possible. Comey would have been gone on day one and so would his deputy. Any leaks found, fire them immediately without any bullshit justification. Simple press release. "XXX was terminated with cause for improperly handling of information. We are not seeking prosecution at this time." Done deal. Make that the unified position, stand on it and no one budge or they get terminated too. Seriously, a ship needs a rudder and while you may take input from others, the decision needs to be made and then carried out.

I think the biggest problem is that he is used to dealing in business where people who come into the company and get to positions of power do so through the ranks and are well vetted or are recruited as already outstanding performers in the position and agree with the direction and goals from the get go. Being an outsider is a good thing to get elected, it's hard to deal with once there. I would have liked to see someone with a lot of effective experience as chief of staff. Running the RNC is nice and all but not the kind of go getter, ass kicker that is needed.

We will see how it goes.

I would also take a lesson from Regan and use the Presidential bully pulpit to simply, clearly and directly explain why Obamacare is crappy, borderline illegal/servitude (thanks for the let down SCOTUS. nice way to bow to political pressure) and why it needs to go and we need to do something else.

~Rocktar~

07-24-2017, 09:23 PM

Are the rats beginning to leave this sinking ship. I wonder if trump will take note and change his behavior.

Mueller is a personal friend of Comey so should have recused himself on that basis alone.

Sessions was fine, the comment by Trump isn't helpful.

If the congress doesn't want sanctions lifted, then they should pass laws and not sit around with their collective thumbs up their asses.

time4fun

07-24-2017, 09:36 PM

Mueller is a personal friend of Comey so should have recused himself on that basis alone.

Sessions was fine, the comment by Trump isn't helpful.

If the congress doesn't want sanctions lifted, then they should pass laws and not sit around with their collective thumbs up their asses.

They weren't personal friends- they had a professional relationship.

There are no ethics rules that are being violated. There's no reason to remove yourself because one of your witnesses used to work with you. If that were the case- any investigations into US government officials would be virtually impossible.

This is about as reasonable and saying "Some lawyers gave to Democrats, and only Republicans and Independents should be allowed to investigate a Republican".

They're just excuses meant to discredit a legitimate investigation.

SHAFT

07-24-2017, 09:37 PM

hello

07-24-2017, 10:44 PM

Sessions will resign as soon as he sees an opening.

The big news though and I'm calling it here is Rex Tillerson, the only other adult in the room short of Mattis, leaving by this Fall. I think his departure will start the ball rolling and will crescendo with the 2018 election. Trump impeached by Feb of 19' I think some of Trumps immediate family are in jeopardy of being criminally convicted. 50/50 if Trump sees the inside of a jail cell.

Tenlaar

07-25-2017, 07:52 AM

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DFkv6wqUQAEOrVh.jpg

drauz

07-25-2017, 07:57 AM

What's up with the ladies eyebrows on his right.

cwolff

07-25-2017, 08:00 AM

What's up with the ladies eyebrows on his right.

Holy Shit. What is up with that? It's like she was getting ready to put her clown face on, but only did the eyebrows before being called away for a photo op

Tenlaar

07-25-2017, 08:10 AM

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DFjA7-BVYAAVmDJ.jpg
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DFjCFP3VoAAAnLC.jpg
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DFjEX5xUIAA-uiA.jpg
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DFk1q1SVwAA34c6.jpg

Tenlaar

07-25-2017, 08:11 AM

You would almost think there was an important vote about something going on today.

EVERYBODY LOOK OVER THERE! FAKE NEWS!

cwolff

07-25-2017, 08:14 AM

Ya, He's a real class act. So...is Barron no longer off limits for political jokes and news stories?

And from the Mooch. Thank God he transparently deleted all his old tweets.

Anthony Scaramucci‏
Verified account

@Scaramucci

AG Jeff Sessions is a stand-up guy. He's always said he would recuse himself from any case in which his impartiality could be questioned.

Tgo01

07-25-2017, 08:31 AM

What's up with the ladies eyebrows on his right.

She looks permanently perplexed.

Methais

07-25-2017, 10:00 AM

What's up with the ladies eyebrows on his right.

http://i.imgur.com/A9Me9YR.gif

http://media.giphy.com/media/3oEduLKDeIOGDomZ2w/giphy.gif

cwolff

07-25-2017, 10:13 AM

They're firing people on TV again.

Newly appointed White House communications director Anthony Scaramucci said on Tuesday that he plans to dismiss assistant press secretary Michael Short.
It would be Scaramucci’s first step toward shaking up the communications shop, which has been dominated by former Republican National Committee staffers loyal to White House chief of staff Reince Priebus, a former RNC chairman.

Jeremy Diamond‏
Verified account

@JDiamond1

Jeremy Diamond Retweeted Tara Palmeri
Michael Short: "No one has told me anything and the entire premise is false." Looks like Scaramucci is firing ppl without telling them first

cwolff

07-25-2017, 10:37 AM

Another libtard I guess. Poor trump being attacked by left wing conspiracy.

Ex-Bush ethics lawyer: Trump calling for Clinton to be prosecuted is an ‘impeachable offense’

Former President George W. Bush's chief ethics lawyer on Tuesday said President Trump calling for Hillary Clinton to be prosecuted is an “impeachable offense.”
“Pressuring AG to prosecute the person who lost the election is an impeachable offense if we value free elections,” Richard Painter tweeted.

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/343588-ex-bush-ethics-lawyer-trump-calling-for-clinton-to-be

Tgo01

07-25-2017, 10:45 AM

Another libtard I guess. Poor trump being attacked by left wing conspiracy.

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/343588-ex-bush-ethics-lawyer-trump-calling-for-clinton-to-be

"The president asking someone to be prosecuted for breaking the law is an impeachable offense."

What a time to be alive.

time4fun

07-25-2017, 10:48 AM

Another libtard I guess. Poor trump being attacked by left wing conspiracy.

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/343588-ex-bush-ethics-lawyer-trump-calling-for-clinton-to-be

HUGE left-wing conspiracy.

Remember that one time a Republican Deputy AG, appointed by Trump to his administration, hired a Republican special prosecutor to investigate Trump after he fired a Republican FBI Director?

When will the liberal madness end?

cwolff

07-26-2017, 02:50 AM

Rexit?

Heather Nauert, the spokesperson for the State Department, surprised reporters on Tuesday by saying that Secretary of State Rex Tillerson is "taking a little time off."

time4fun

07-26-2017, 08:33 AM

Rexit?

Yeah... No complaints if he leaves. He has serious Russian ties and ran a company that mislead the nation about climate change.

He should never have been confirmed

hello

07-26-2017, 08:52 AM

The BIG litmus test is coming, if he's willing to sign the Russia Sanctions bill that just passed the House by one bajillion to one. If he doesn't sign, you can can guess how that will play out.

time4fun

07-26-2017, 09:03 AM

The BIG litmus test is coming, if he's willing to sign the Russia Sanctions bill that just passed the House by one bajillion to one. If he doesn't sign, you can can guess how that will play out.

He has no choice. Congress passed the current versions of the bill with veto proof majorities.

He is, of course, going to send enough of a message that he's not ardently pro-sanctions (lest he be seen as not fulfilling his part of the bargain), but he will sign.

Tgo01

07-26-2017, 09:07 AM

He has no choice. Congress passed the current versions of the bill with veto proof majorities.

Of course he has a choice. Do you know how this process works?

hello

07-26-2017, 09:21 AM

Of course he has a choice. Do you know how this process works?

yeah I think the talking dog is right, he could just let the bill sit (pocket veto). Not sure on the exact procedural mechanics; also this could've been overruled by SCOTUSa bit back.

All in all, it does kinda look bad for Trump when he keeps shouting from the rooftops that he has nothing to do with Russia then turns around and treats them with extreme favoritism.

Tgo01

07-26-2017, 09:31 AM

yeah I think the talking dog is right, he could just let the bill sit (pocket veto).

No, the president has to sign the bill or veto it within 10 days or it becomes law anyways.

My point was the president can veto any bill that comes to him, doesn't matter how many people voted for it.

It's possible if Trump vetoes the bill that some members or senators decide not to vote to override his veto. Or maybe they do override his veto but the president still vetoes the bill as a way to say look, I had absolutely nothing to do with this bill.

I'm not saying Trump should veto the bill, I'm just saying he always has the option to.

time4fun

07-26-2017, 09:43 AM

yeah I think the talking dog is right, he could just let the bill sit (pocket veto). Not sure on the exact procedural mechanics; also this could've been overruled by SCOTUSa bit back.

All in all, it does kinda look bad for Trump when he keeps shouting from the rooftops that he has nothing to do with Russia then turns around and treats them with extreme favoritism.

He's not right.

A President refusing to sign a bill doesn't keep it from coming into effect. If they don't sign it, it becomes law after a few days- the President has the ability to check the Legislature, but only the Legislature determines what becomes a law. (i.e. The Executive's input isn't required to pass laws)

The only exception is if the President vetoes while Congress isn't in session to respond. But Congress can easily get around that.

Plus, it's a temporary solution at best. Even if Congress didn't use the standard tricks they use now to prevent a pocket veto, they could just pass the Bill again when recess is over.

time4fun

07-26-2017, 09:48 AM

Of course he has a choice. Do you know how this process works?

Will you ever research what you say before you say it?

It's so easy. Really.

Tgo01

07-26-2017, 09:49 AM

Will you ever research what you say before you say it?

It's so easy. Really.

Says the person who responded 12 minutes after me saying I was right about every thing.

Nice self own.

time4fun

07-26-2017, 10:00 AM

Yes Tgo, the takeaway from this exchange is how "owned" I am. Sorry I didn't organize my gym schedule around your inaccuracies.

Also, your take on veto is completely off. "Some" is over 100, and Congress doesn't respond to vetoes on bills that curtail Executive power by changing their minds.

Tgo01

07-26-2017, 10:11 AM

Yes Tgo, the takeaway from this exchange is how "owned" I am.

Agreed. That's why I said it.

Sorry I didn't organize my gym schedule around your inaccuracies.

What does that have to do with you posting 12 minutes after me basically saying what I said, THEN posting again implying I was wrong because I never research anything? At least attempt to make sense in your inane ramblings.

Also, your take on veto is completely off. "Some" is over 100

You know the senate needs 2/3 to vote to override the veto too, right? That would only require 33 senators to change their vote or abstain. I didn't say it will happen, I said it's possible. You must be a sith because you apparently only deal in absolutes.