Girl's Behavior 
Guy's Behavior 
Flirting 
Dating 
Relationships 
Fashion & Beauty 
Health & Fitness 
Marriage & Weddings 
Shopping & Gifts 
Technology & Internet 
Break Up & Divorce 
Education & Career 
Entertainment & Arts 
Family & Friends 
Food & Beverage 
Hobbies & Leisure 
Other 
Religion & Spirituality 
Society & Politics 
Sports 
Travel 
Trending & News 
Whoa..
Why are people saying Harris won the ABC debate?
What is your opinion?
Add Opinion
Superb Opinion
- 4.1K opinions shared on Society & Politics topic.
1 yIt’s more about how she won by default, like Trump did vs Biden. Trump was bad both times, he just debated someone worse and better, respectively.
All she really did was give him that one poke, challenging his rally crowd sizes, which is the most absurd thing to get defensive about or even be hanging your hat on in the first place, and he lost control and his ego took over. He totally imploded from there.
He was definitely fact-checked more, and he was challenged more, and if you want to say there was some bias, I can concede that. BUT…. this is a little different, because Trump lies CONSTANTLY, and he goes BIG. So you kind of HAVE TO fact-check him as he goes, BECAUSE the lies are so egregious and narrative-altering.
Like if the moderator stepped in and said “VP Harris, as of yet, there are no stated plans for a monitoring of pregnancies to make sure no one is getting abortions against their states’ will”, that’s ok. But if they don’t, that’s ok too, because that’s more standard political gamesmanship. It’s dishonest, but it’s easily fact-checked by a layperson.
The problem with Trump and the machine that’s grown around him is that he lies about politically-existential things. HUGE LIES: the election was stolen; babies are being aborted after birth; immigrants stealing and eating people’s pets….. these are INSANE assertions, and are absolutely, positively NOT really things that happened.
And that’s why we’re in this mess, because half the country believes ABSURD lies, not just the usual bullshit we get from politicians. If you take Trump’s word as credible, just broadly, THAT’S where you’re fucking up. If I actually BELIEVED the things he claimed to be true, yeah, I might think the world is on fire and vote for Trump to. But that’s just not the reality I observe. I live my life every day and never encounter the problems he claims are rampant.When you take into account that the guy is a raging egomaniac and narcissist, one of the shadiest and most dishonest businessmen in American history, obsessed with being the center of attention, and willing to say absolutely anything to obtain power and status, now with the additional incentive of getting himself off the hook for some crimes that, no matter what anyone tries to say otherwise, SUUUUUUURRRRRRREEEEEEE look suspicious, if not outright guilty (remember these cases were all presented to grand juries of American citizens….. the American legal system simply is not built to be able to target people politically, that’s nonsense, never believe that Trump is just under attack. This is him facing accountability that ALL OF US SHOULD, from the lowliest street urchin, to you or me, to any and all people in Washington DC.
And what’s hilarious is that Trump’s entire con is that HE’S the outlier you can trust. Holy smokes…. if you believe that, I have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you, and I’ll throw in the Golden Gate in San Francisco for half-price.
This guy is an ALL-PRO con artist, in a business that’s already chock full of lesser ones. Period. Full stop. End of lecture. Thanks for coming, please hit the lights on your way out. America is fucked as long as they view this guy or anyone in the MAGA orbit as such.
Kamala is what she is. She’s fine. I have some qualms with her record as a prosecutor, I don’t really like putting people in jail as a general rule (Trump included, just send him home to golf at Mar-A-Lago, I don’t need him clinked up, just out politics where he does so much harm to the decency of our nation and citizens, he’s an elderly man), and especially not for weed. I’d probably have gone in a different direction if Joe Biden wasn’t the last one to realize he’s too old to go on. But as long as the opponent is Trump, any non-maniacal-wannabe-dictator will do just fine. I want Trump and MAGA out of the picture so we can get back to serious business, Trump turned this whole thing into a fucking circus. Like it’s just impossible to have serious policy discussion when MAGA lives in a completely fabricated alternate reality.
So once that’s eliminated, we can be more discriminating about who our candidates are. But the Trump clown show is just bad for all of us, so if you love America, I can’t imagine voting for the guy, despite how much he tries to claim the opposite.
263 Reply- 1 y
- 1 y
Wining by default is when the other guy forfeits such as not answering the questions.
Trump gave answers whether or not they could have been better answers only matters if Kamala had answered at all.
Most people agree Trump missed opperunties and could have done better but that hardly matters if Kamala was too busy trying to agitate Trump to bother addressing the issues at all. - 1 y
@exitseven What, exactly, was the plan McCain voted against? There wasn't one. Trump just admitted it on national TV!
- 1 y
- 1 y
@exitseven oh, I never said he wasn’t a smart guy. Trump is a fucking mongoloid, they picked the guy because he can actually string sentences together. He doesn’t order donuts very well, but I would say he’s dumb. But he is a fraud. He called Trump “America’s Hitler”, but suddenly, he’s seen the light and Trump is great. There are all these grifters SO OBVIOUSLY just trying to get themselves close to power: RFK Jr, Tulsi Gabbard, Kevin McCarthy was playing the game for a minute, the entirety of Evangelical Christian Republicans, and now here’s “J. P. Mandel”, as Trump calls him. Best friends forever, lmao.
My problem with Vance is his anti-choice positions and generally misogynistic outlooks towards marriage. He’s trying to end no-fault divorce, which would leave women in possibly physically or emotionally abusive situations, unable to leave. All this to preserve “the nuclear family.” My dad gets on this thing too, like if dad’s not there, nothing could ever go right for a kid, so fuck whatever the mom needs, her fault for tethering herself to a shitty guy, right? Not for nothing, my parents stayed together, and I came out fine enough, but I’m nothing compared to my two cousins, who didn’t grow up with their dad, and actually grew up mostly in a two-mom household. One is an engineer, one is a veterinarian. The engineer is a GREAT dad to two GREAT daughters, also unfortunately in a divorced family. The vet is a “childless cat lady”, an Ohio resident, and she hates Vance with the fire of a thousand suns. - 1 y
@exitseven You guys have to understand, even when you think you’re coming from a good place or some kind of necessity, you’re going to lose support when the energy seems hateful instead of just whatever is practical. You want see strong families? Awesome. Calling people “childless cat ladies”, I no longer believe you’re a good person with well-meaning ideas. Tell me we need heightened security at the border and have humane solutions. You lose me when you tell me they’re all rapists and murderers, and you don’t really care if they’re detained or expelled with any sort of basic human compassion. You guys need to rebrand your energy. I don’t like all the ideas, but it’s the obvious mood behind them that really turns me off and makes me feel like it’s not being done in good faith.
- 1 y
@monorprise I think what you’re missing is that Trump is just spewing an endless fountain of lies. And not normal politician lies, like I said, but about REALLY important stuff that’s causing people to wrongly suspect foul play in our elections. That is super, super, SUPER fucking dangerous to do. And beyond that, just his entire framing of all information in the universe as “if looks bad for Trump, then you automatically can’t believe it, and the only reason it happens is because Trump is so awesome and strong and smart that everyone is afraid of him. If I win, it’s fair; if I lose, it’s rigged. It’s quite literally like dealing with a small child whose brain hasn’t developed enough to realize that what they’re doing isn’t at all clever and isn’t fooling anyone who isn’t dumb or just unwaveringly biased. It’s a little kid putting a sheet over his head, and they act indignant if the rest of us don’t pretend we can’t see them. He’s the class president candidate just saying shit that sounds good that he’ll never be able to deliver in reality. “No homework, ever! Tests, quizzes, papers, and report cards will be banned! And I’ll institute the two day school week/five day weekend!” No you won’t, bro, you literally CAN’T🤦♂️😂
- 1 y
- 1 y
@WhiteSteve
I always give specific reasons justifying my position on a subject. If you want to give specific examples instead of making broad negative claims about trump and your view of him. We can discuss those issues. - 1 y
@goaded A veto is defined in the constitution as the president simply refusing to sign a law article 1 Section 7:
constitution.congress.gov/.../
Here is trump saying in the debate he will veto an abortion ban literally:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IXeY4-QGMkg - 1 y
@monorprise True, he does say that, but it's in the same breath as him saying "everybody wanted" Roe overturned, which is an (another?) obvious lie. Of course, now it's in the states' hands, Republicans are doing everything they can to stop abortion rights coming up for a vote, including sending the police to the homes of people who signed a petition in Florida.
- 1 y
@monorprise we can do that another day on another question, I don’t have it in me to catalogue all of his lies and mischaracterizations, I don’t have enough time before the election to rattle them all off. And frankly, the lies are probably things that have been discussed ad nauseum already, and the answer will just be standard MAGA playbook of: “Trump never said that. If he did say it, he didn’t mean it. If he did mean it, then you just don’t understand. If you do understand, then what he said wasn’t that bad. If it was that bad, others have said or done worse.” Again, it’s impossibly difficult to have honest conversations about anything when this excuse structure has been built around the entire thing, and the tactic seems to be trying to win through sheer mental exhaustion of your opponent, requiring proof or in-depth analysis of every stupid little lie or misdeed to justify our offense to it, and the audience is the opposite of receptive, they’re deliberately combative and don’t generally accept reasonable points when they’re made, so it’s an exercise in futility overall.
The only way this gets better is YOU GUYS realizing that you’re getting conned. Any aggression aside, at the end of the day, all the rest of us are trying to do is vigorously shake you by the shoulders to snap you out of this MAGA trance y’all are in. And I just can’t today. I have yardwork, lmao. - 1 y
@goaded Everybody is an expression of believe in people he knew and heard from and he's correct. Everyone around him including people like me wanted Roe vs. wade overturned as it was bad law. Even the extreme leftst hero RBG who was consistently delusional on most laws acknowledge Roe vs. wade was bad law..
Because Roe Vs wade was indeed ridiculously bad edict completely unjustifiable in a written constitutional system of law.
Seriously the federal politicians in black robes made up huge complex systems of rules out of thin air and inserted them into a then already nearly 200 year old constitution where never-before they had ever been observed.
I can hardly imagine how a judge's edict could be more lawless. - 1 y
@monorprise Why do you think you get to just redefine words? Everybody means everybody. Not "my mates", not "the people I hang out with", not "people who agree with me", it means EVERYBODY. Stop trying to sane-wash Trump.
It's also the kind of thinking that leads to people not being able to comprehend that 81 million is more than 74 million and 306 is bigger than 232, and that Trump lost, fair and square. - 1 y
@goaded I don't need to redefine the words in English context is everything and from the context of when Trump first said that he was speaking about his perspective of everyone he knew.
Clearly not literally everyone, as a lot of extremist want to force their pro-abortion views down the throats of everyone in states they will never visit. - 1 y
@WhiteSteve
Show me where Trump has lied and provide credible proof to support your claims. I'll wait... - 1 y
@monorprise If a majority are in favour of allowing women to control their bodies regarding pregnancies, they're not "a lot of extremist" [sic], Extremists force their position on other people. Nobody's forcing women to have abortions, extremist is forcing women to carry every pregnancy to term (and incidentally killing some).
- 1 y
- 1 y
@monorprise You've also not seen evidence that a majority want to ban abortion in any state of the union. Every time it's come up for a vote, the right to an abortion has won, even in "Red" states. Why do you think Republicans are so dead set on removing or inserting misleading text into referenda, or DeSantis is sending police to people's homes, with dossiers, just for signing a petition? Missouri Secretary of State Jay Ashcroft tried to get the abortion amendment off of the November ballot, only to be reversed by the state supreme court.
"The 10 states that will be voting on abortion this year are: Arizona, Colorado, Florida, Maryland, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New York, and South Dakota. Organizers in another state, Arkansas, collected signatures to add an abortion-rights initiative to the ballot, but the state rejected the proposal—a decision that was upheld by the Arkansas supreme court in August." TIME - 1 y
@PreferNot2Say The very fact that you’re asking that as a serious challenge tells me how badly you’re blinded. I could certainly point to examples, but I don’t think your answer is going to be “oh, I wasn’t aware of that. Thanks for informing me.” You’re just going to tell me I’m brainwashed or a sheep and my sources are biased or completely fake and can’t be trusted.
You guys all live in willful self-delusion, so if you ever find your way out of that, come back and we can talk. Until then, it’s the biggest waste of my time that I could possibly imagine - 1 y
- 1 y
@monorprise Some of those laws are a hundred years old, hardly representative of today's electorate, or passed when they were irrelevant, due to Roe. States allowing constitutional amendments on individual issues like abortion are following their own constitutions. Are you saying constitutional amendments are against "their republican form of goverment"?
The only people injecting "deceptive and confusing language" are Republicans. The ones who didn't simply try to ignore the perfectly valid petition that led to the referendum in the first place.
The Florida Supreme Court stated that "the broad sweep of this proposed amendment is obvious in the language of the summary. Denying this requires a flight from reality", while ruling that there is "no basis for concluding that the proposed amendment is facially invalid under the United States Constitution."
A Cole County judge on Thursday ruled that Ashcroft’s “fair ballot language” summary of the reproductive rights amendment, also known as Amendment 3, was “unfair, inaccurate, insufficient and misleading.” - 1 y
@exitseven He talks and behaves like a bozo.
- 1 y
@goaded I am pointing out that in many states what they call a "Constitutional amendment" need merely a majority of the voter's consent. Which is to say they don't have a constitution or republican form of goverment at all but rather a direct democracy.
A constitution is a the terms of the consent to be governed, the bar for which to be altered and established Must be far higher in majority and include a majority of otherwise self-governing regions too.
Otherwise it is simply a referendum in a direct democracy having effectively abandoned the republican form of goverment. - 1 y
@monorprise Of course it's not a direct democracy, there's a high bar to introducing a constitutional amendment, which is why there are only a handful each cycle and frivolous ones would be voted down. Laws are still passed by representatives. Just because you think you know better than the people who wrote their constitutions doesn't make it so.
- 1 y
@goaded Correct, there has to be a high bar to pass a constitutional amendment, that is reasonably true of the Federal Constitution. That is unfortunately not true in every state for their state Constitutions. Some like California's proposition system in practice require mere majorities with disastrous consequences for Califorina.
- 1 y
- 1 y
- 1 y
@goaded Your correct although the California Constitutions was actually written in 1849, it regardless introduced the concept of direct democracy in the form of simple majority vote on constitutional amendments which was later expanded further in the progressive era with prop 7 had become soo easy as to render the same constitution pointless as a restriction on goverment, as well as ridiculously complex and lengthy with nearly 5 such amendments a year.
California as such was never really a republic certainly not after prop 7
- 1 y
- 1 y
@Juxtapose Prove its a hoax.
- 1 y
@goaded California is by way of its proposition system above the constitutions on mere majority a direct democracy. No different than the original direct democracies of Athens.
The fact that californium also has representatives who administrate and are themselfs elected is also like the original direct democracy of Athens.
This puts californium firmly out of the contrasting definition of Republic as far as the founders who wrote the clause in question were conserved in condemning the idea of direct democracy.
So strictly speaking an originality reading of the Federal constitution as agreed and sold to us by the people who wrote it. Would make California's proposition system insofar as it governs without an intermediate representative or the limits of a constitution in all real ways a direct democracy not a republican system of goverment. And thus Unconstitutional by article 4 Section 4 - 1 y
@monorprise It's amazing how you put your home made definitions of words over what the law says whenever it suits you. A republic "is a state in which political power rests with the public through their representatives—in contrast to a monarchy." No definition of the word demands that they can never hold a referrendum or that it must have a supermajority.
California wrote its constitution 170 years ago, it was accepted as a "republican form of government" by the existing states of the Union, it's never been challenged as not being a republic except by you. Maybe some Sovereign Citizens, Oath Keepers or other seditionists, too. - 1 y
@goaded California was accepted because it was politically necessary for the north, the same north who just a decade later disregarded the same constitution's clear 10th amendment reservation of the the inalienable (Can NEVER be ceded) right of the people and their states to withdraw.
Instead they created an empire so I'm afraid the Yankees who let New York in under that constitution didn't much care about ideas like Republic, only whether or not you shared their political policy believes on certant issues they deemed key. Of course they haven't cared much since under the empire either. Not like your vote really matters to them anyway. - 1 y
@monorprise States can withdraw from the Union. They can either try by force (sedition) or by democratically passing an amendment to the constitution to allow secession and following that agreed process.
The US is not an empire, the Civil War was about slavery, and slavery would have continued for generations if there hadn't been a war. - 1 y
- 1 y
@goaded
Yes there is a perfectly legal way we actually voted on 200 years ago. Its called the constitutions which leaves that inalienable (cannot be ceded even if we wanted to) right to the people and their states.
The exact same states that voted to withdraw from the brittish empire using the same inalienable right which the brittish empire did in fact declare illegal. - 1 y
@Juxtapose You realise that's why the Founding Fathers created an amendable constitution that allowed peaceful transitions of power based on elections by the people, right? You now can argue against the head of the state without having your head removed, and choose another, peacefully (until Jan 6, 2021). It's not the 18th century any more.
Guess what? If the US passed an amendment to allow secession by supermajority (learn from Brexit, guys!), it would lead to a stronger union and a couple of states clamouring to be re-admitted. - 1 y
@Juxtapose That's what elections are for.
The corruption is plain for anyone to see, and it's all on the Republican side. Trump took millions from foreign countries while president, his son in law got $2 billion to "invest" from countries he helped (I wonder if that will be labelled a "tax-free gratuity"), Republicans in Congress opening baseless "investigations" in the vain hope of finding something, anything, to pin on Biden and impeach him, and constant attacks on the electoral system and democratic process in the US which is more secure than it's ever been, other than from Republican insiders intimidating and supressing voters and threatening not to certify results. - 1 y
@goaded uhhh no.
oversight.house.gov/.../ - 1 y
Oh, sorry, you're talking about why Biden wasn't impeached. That was because he didn't do anything wrong.
Almost all the "evidence" that was shown against him came from liars, fugitives, foreign agents, and associates of (now twice disbarred) Guiliani from Ukraine at about the time Trump was getting impeached for trying to get Ukraine to make up shit on Biden. (Most of the individuals ticked more than one of those boxes.)
Also, you're meant to start inquiries with a high crime or misdemeanour (e. g. extorting a foreign government for personal gain or initiating a violent attack on the seat of government), not pick a "suspect" and look for a crime. - 1 y
The Republican-led groundless impeachment investigation into the Bidens "literally ignored shit Biden did"? Why?
Of course, you're referring to the Hur report, but that explicitly says you're wrong:
"Most notably, after being given multiple chances to return classified documents and avoid prosecution, Mr. Trump allegedly did the opposite. According to the indictment, he not only refused to return the documents for many months, but he also obstructed justice by enlisting others to destroy evidence and then to lie about it. In contrast, Mr. Biden turned in classified documents to the National Archives and the Department of Justice, consented to the search of multiple locations including his homes, sat for a voluntary interview. and in other ways cooperated with the investigation."
And "We conclude that no criminal charges are warranted in this matter. We would
reach the same conclusion even if Department of Justice policy did not foreclose
criminal charges against a sitting president."
And the real reasons Biden was not charged:
"... but we believe the evidence would be insufficient to obtain a conviction and therefore..."
"... we find this evidence to be insufficient to meet..."
"... as a whole insufficient to meet the government's burden..."
"... insufficient evidence that Mr. Biden willfully..."
"... insufficient to meet the government's burden..."
"... insufficient evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr..."
"... insufficient evidence to support charging Mr. Biden or anyone else..."
"... insufficient evidence to support charging Mr. Biden..."
"... There is insufficient evidence to charge Mr. Biden..."
"... There is insufficient evidence to charge Mr. Biden..."
"... There is insufficient evidence to show Mr. Biden willfully retained..."
"... There is insufficient evidence to charge Mr. Biden with..."
"... the available evidence is insufficient to obtain and sustain..."
www.justice.gov/.../...ert-k-hur-february-2024.pdf
Most Helpful Opinions
5.3K opinions shared on Society & Politics topic. Mostly because we saw Trump melt down in real time. Also because none of those internet polls (not worth the paper they're written on) are from anywhere reputable, and that Fox News one isn't even the final view of Fox News viewers. Participants in internet polls are self-selecting, precisely the opposite of what a poll should be.
Even 30% of Fox News viewers thought Trump lost Karl Rove: "Will this debate have an effect? Yes, though perhaps not as much as Team Harris hopes or as much as Team Trump might fear. But there’s no putting lipstick on this pig. Mr. Trump was crushed by a woman he previously dismissed as “dumb as a rock.” Which raises the question: What does that make him?" I guess he's a RINO now, too?
"Leading Report is an anonymously published conservative news and opinion website..." "known for promoting misinformation and conspiracy theories".
1192 Reply- 1 y
As other people have also pointed out, internet polls don't mean a thing.
"Mr. Trump was crushed by a woman he previously dismissed as “dumb as a rock.” Which raises the question: What does that make him?" Karl Rove, Republican political consultant, policy advisor, and lobbyist. He was Senior Advisor and Deputy Chief of Staff during the George W. Bush administration. - 1 y
And also to help prove to you that the debate was rigged, Harris was not fact checked once even though she said things that were indeed BULLSHIT. That "very fine people" comment has already been fact checked by the far left (snopes).
www.snopes.com/fact-check/trump-very-fine-people/ - 1 y
"And yes they do mean something, the polls. People who cared enough to vote support Trump." You mean people who knew about the polls did. Fox viewers, people who follow right-wing propaganda sites.
A real poll selects participants at random. Like this one: "53% said Harris won and 24% said Trump won"
www.usnews.com/.../harris-builds-lead-over-trump-voters-see-her-as-debate-winner-reuters-ipsos-poll-shows
www.snopes.com/fact-check/trump-very-fine-people/
Confirms that she was completely correct (unless you want to argue that "each side" and "both sides" mean something different).
Transcript: "Charlottesville, where there was a mob of people carrying tiki torches, spewing antisemitic hate, and what did the president then at the time say? There were fine people on each side."
Snopes: "Trump did say there were "very fine people on both sides," referring to the protesters and the counterprotesters." And also: "This fact check aimed to confirm what Trump actually said, not whether what he said was true or false. For the record, virtually every source that covered the Unite the Right debacle concluded that it was conceived of, led by and attended by white supremacists, and that therefore Trump's characterization was wrong. " - 1 y
You are being deliberately deceptive.
"We looked into these claims, and found that while Trump did say there were "very fine people on both sides," meaning both the protesters and the counterprotesters, he also condemned neo-Nazis and white nationalists outright and said he was specifically referring to those who were there only to participate in the statue protest." - 1 y
Snopes: "For the record, virtually every source that covered the Unite the Right debacle concluded that it was conceived of, led by and attended by white supremacists"
So, the only people on that side were white supremacists, and Trump said there were very fine people among them. You can try to pretend that's not the case, but you're wrong.
More specifically, this is 100% accurate: "Charlottesville, where there was a mob of people carrying tiki torches, spewing antisemitic hate, and what did the president then at the time say? There were fine people on each side."
She didn't say they were all Nazis or white supremacists, did she? - 1 y
OK, now you're just bullshitting. I suggested we continue the conversation here, not you.
Ever seen a bigger pussee? ↗
"I can't be bothered repeating all the same arguments here as well. "
To which you responded " Oh how CONVENIENT for you!
Okay, answer my post from here, there. ", remember?
Snopes said there weren't very fine people on the side with the white supremacists. The people who organised it.
Why aren't you talking about the "Stand back and stand by" comment that Harris also pointed out that Trump said? Is it because multiple Proud Boys have been sentenced to up to 22 years for seditious conspiracy and other crimes regarding Jan 6? - 1 y
"We looked into these claims, and found that while Trump did say there were "very fine people on both sides," meaning both the protesters and the counterprotesters, he also condemned neo-Nazis and white nationalists outright and said he was specifically referring to those who were there only to participate in the statue protest."
- 1 y
@exitseven Let me get this straight. No Republican before 2016 is actually a Republican?
- 1 y
@Juxtapose Along with Dick Cheney, Harris has also been endorsed by Bill DeBlasio, who allowed this to happen on his watch as New York City mayor:
D. Trump Has Been Indicted For GIVING S. Daniels $130,000. Why Isn't C. McCray Being Indicted For LOSING/MISAPPROPRIATING/STEALING Over $850 Million? ↗
Additionally, Merrick Garland recently announced that Iran is interfering in the election, supporting Harris, and Putin also endorsed Harris. So let's recap, for our stupid pompous socialist "friends":
Harris endorsements:
Vladimir Putin
Dick Cheney
Bill DeBlasio
Iran - 1 y
@NYCQuestions1976 So Putin was paying Tim Pool to attack Trump?
- 1 y
- 1 y
@NYCQuestions1976 Nothing, Pool is working for Russian interests. The DoJ is trying to stop Iran, too, as they should.
Cheney is simply being a patriot and putting country above party, for now. - 1 y
- 1 y
@NYCQuestions1976 Yes, a patriot puts their country over their party or themselves. I don't for a second think that Liz Cheney is ever going to vote Democratic again, but this is the time it really counts.
- 1 y
- 1 y
@NYCQuestions1976 How come all the Russian money went to people like Tim Pool, if Putin endorses Harris. Can't you see when you're being played?
What am I saying? Of course you can't, you believe Trump. - 1 y
@goaded Collusion was debunked. Find something better to do with your life than gaslighting people and spreading disinformation.
"What am I saying? Of course you can't, you believe Trump."
Stop posting incoherent gibberish. You type like you've got 10 thumbs. Maybe this will help:
https://youtu.be/8Gv0H-vPoDc?si=mp7AND4oLqf3It_3 - 1 y
@NYCQuestions1976 Collusion wasn't proven, by Mueller, the Senate report found that the Trump campaign was in daily contact with Russian agents.
- 1 y
- 1 y
@NYCQuestions1976 The more you lie about the findings of the reports, the more you show off your membership of the cult.
"The chairman of the Trump campaign was in daily contact with a Russian agent, constantly sharing confidential information with him."
www.theatlantic.com/.../
"[This] report includes significant information. demonstrating that Paul Manafort's support for Russia and pro-Russian factions in Ukraine was deeper than previously known. The report also details extremely troubling information about the extent and nature of Manafort's connection with Kilimnik and Manafort's passage of campaign polling data to Kilimnik. Most troubling of all are indications that Kilimnik, and Manafort himself, were connected to Russia's hack-and-leak operations."
"Kilimnik disseminated propaganda claiming Ukrainian interference in the 2016
election, beginning even before that election and continuing into late 2019. [Redacted] And the report includes information on the role of other Russian government proxies and personas in spreading false narratives about Ukrainian interference in the U. S. election. This propaganda, pushed by a Russian intel'ligence officer and other Russian proxies, was the basis'on which Donald Trump sought to extort the current government of Ukraine into providing assistance to his reelection efforts and was at the center of Trump's impeachment and Senate trial."
www.intelligence.senate.gov/.../report_volume5.pdf Page 949
This was a bipartisan report. - 1 y
@Juxtapose Get a load of @goaded here. He's still the biggest lemming in the socialism cult, running off the highest cliff. 😂
@goaded Collusion is debunked bullshit. You've spent over 8 years of your life believing disinformation engineered by Hillary Clinton and her campaign, and you continue to foam at the mouth like a carnival barker and embarrass yourself. - 1 y
@NYCQuestions1976 So Trump's campaign manager was in almost daily encoded communication with a Russian agent, and that's not collusion?
Mueller only talked about "conspiracy" or "coordination", not collusion. And he notably said the opposite of the Hur report's actual exoneration of Biden. - 1 y
@goaded Don't be mad at me because you're a gullible fool that still believes bullshit engineered by Hillary Clinton and her cronies.
Hur's report doesn't "exonerate" Biden, you dimwit. Hur labeled Biden too feeble, too forgetful, and too stupid to stand trial.
Harris endorsements:
Vladimir Putin
Dick Cheney
Bill DeBlasio
Iran - 1 y
@NYCQuestions1976 Line 1 of the Hur report: "We conclude that no criminal charges are warranted in this matter. We would reach the same conclusion even if Department of Justice policy did not foreclose criminal charges against a sitting president."
That's what exoneration looks like.
Conversely, Mueller: "If we had had confidence that the president clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so." - 1 y
- 1 y
@NYCQuestions1976 What's the point. The whole story is written up in the report, but even if I quoted all the relevant parts, you'll still go with your deceitful narrative because you can never admit when you're wrong.
- 1 y
@goaded The point is ACTUAL FACTUAL REALITY, something that you deliberately ignore and dodge as a dangerous gaslighting socialist spreading disinformation every chance you get. The only relevant parts of Hur's report are the conclusion that Biden is "too forgetful" and "too feeble" "to stand trial". That doesn't translate into innocence. Stop gaslighting people and spreading disinformation.
- 1 y
@NYCQuestions1976 No, the relevant parts of Hur's report are where he says there wasn't enough evidence to warrant an indictment, that they wouldn't have indicted Biden even if he wasn't president at the time, and the explanation of why Trump's crimes were so much more egregious.
- 1 y
- 1 y
@NYCQuestions1976 Like I said, I could quote the document for the next month and you'll still believe your supposed quotes are actual quotes from it. They're not, but you're incapable of admitting error.
"However, for the reasons summarized below, we conclude that the evidence does not establish Mr. Biden's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Prosecution of Mr. Biden is also unwarranted based on our consideration of the aggravating and mitigating factors set forth in the Department of Justice's Principles of Federal Prosecution. For these reasons, we decline prosecution of Mr. Biden."
Just for fun, I'll put in what Hur says about Trump:
"several material distinctions between Mr. Trump's case and Mr. Biden's are clear. Unlike the evidence involving Mr. Biden, the allegations set forth in the indictment of Mr. Trump, if proven, would present serious aggravating facts.
Most notably, after being given multiple chances to return classified documents and avoid prosecution, Mr. Trump allegedly did the opposite. According to the indictment, he not only refused to return the documents for many months, but he also obstructed justice by enlisting others to destroy evidence and then to lie about it. In contrast, Mr. Biden turned in classified documents to the National Archives and the Department of Justice, consented to the search of multiple locations including his homes, sat for a voluntary interview. and in other ways cooperated with the investigation." - 1 y
@goaded As Vice President, Biden was never permitted to possess classified documents in the first place. Hur's conclusion of Biden wasn't "innocence". Hur's conclusion of Biden was that he was/is "too feeble" and "too forgetful" "to stand trial". Stop spreading disinformation and gaslighting people. It's dangerous socialists like yourself that are causing other unhinged leftists in this country to plan and carry out assassination attempts because they believe your nonsensical bullshit.
- 1 y
@NYCQuestions1976 On what page does the word "feeble" appear? How about "forgetful"? (This is another case where you could easily prove yourself correct, but can't because you're wrong and unable to admit it.)
"Most notably, after being given multiple chances to return classified documents and avoid prosecution, Mr. Trump allegedly did the opposite. According to the indictment, he not only refused to return the documents for many months, but he also obstructed justice by enlisting others to destroy evidence and then to lie about it. In contrast, Mr. Biden turned in classified documents to the National Archives and the Department of Justice, consented to the search of multiple locations including his homes, sat for a voluntary interview. and in other ways cooperated with the investigation."
Here are the places where insufficient appears:
"but we believe the evidence would be insufficient to obtain a conviction and therefore..."
"... discussed further in Chapter Eleven, we find this evidence to be insufficient to meet..."
"... as a whole insufficient to meet the government's burden of proving..."
"There is also insufficient evidence that Mr. Biden willfully..."
"We conclude that the evidence is insufficient to meet the government's burden."
"There is insufficient evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr.
insufficient evidence to support charging Mr. Biden or anyone else..."
"There is insufficient evidence to support charging Mr. Biden for..."
"There is insufficient evidence to charge Mr. Biden with..."
"There is insufficient evidence to charge Mr. Biden with..."
"There is insufficient evidence to show Mr. Biden willfully retained document..."
"There is insufficient evidence to charge Mr. Biden with..."
"... appropriate both because the available evidence is insufficient to obtain and sustain..."
www.justice.gov/.../...ert-k-hur-february-2024.pdf - 1 y
@goaded Biden, as Vice President, wasn't 81 years old in January 2017 when he took the classified documents, was never allowed to possess classified documents, and had no authority to declassify classified documents. Furthermore, all you need to do is type in "Hur report feeble forgetful" into Google. Numerous links come up. Axios, AP News, The Hill, The New Yorker, Reuters, New York Magazine, etcetera. You know... all of those "conservative" media outlets? Also, Biden, Harris, the White House, his administration, and just about all Democrats all pushed back on Hur's report and his description of Biden in February 2024, basically all claiming that Biden was the epitome of mental and physical health. How'd that turn out for all of them by the time June/July 2024 rolled around? Here's the answer: They're all professional lying cover-up artists, desperate for power. So once again, stop deliberately spreading disinformation and gaslighting people with your stupid and dangerous socialism. Find something better to do with your time, like schedule a frontal lobotomy for yourself.
- 1 y
@NYCQuestions1976 Of course a vice president can have classified documents, it's obviously part of their job! I see you couldn't find the words in the report and decided to go for quoting articles instead. Anybody can read the report for themselves and see the reasons Biden was not indicted:
"... the evidence would be insufficient to obtain a conviction..."
"... discussed further in Chapter Eleven, we find this evidence to be insufficient to meet..."
"... as a whole insufficient to meet the government's burden of proving..."
"There is also insufficient evidence that Mr. Biden willfully..."
"We conclude that the evidence is insufficient to meet the government's burden."
"There is insufficient evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr.
insufficient evidence to support charging Mr. Biden or anyone else..."
"There is insufficient evidence to support charging Mr. Biden for..."
"There is insufficient evidence to charge Mr. Biden with..."
"There is insufficient evidence to charge Mr. Biden with..."
"There is insufficient evidence to show Mr. Biden willfully retained document..."
"There is insufficient evidence to charge Mr. Biden with..."
"... appropriate both because the available evidence is insufficient to obtain and sustain..."
The reasons Trump was indicted are:
"Most notably, after being given multiple chances to return classified documents and avoid prosecution, Mr. Trump allegedly did the opposite. According to the indictment, he not only refused to return the documents for many months, but he also obstructed justice by enlisting others to destroy evidence and then to lie about it. In contrast, Mr. Biden turned in classified documents to the National Archives and the Department of Justice, consented to the search of multiple locations including his homes, sat for a voluntary interview. and in other ways cooperated with the investigation." - 1 y
@goaded Unlike you, I'm a valuable and useful member of society. I don't have the time to waste placating your stupid requests and reading an entire 350+ page report to find a handful of words and that clearly describes Biden as "too feeble" and "too forgetful" "to stand trial". Nowhere in that report are the words "innocent" or "exonerated" used to describe Biden.
Vice Presidents cannot possess or declassify classified documents. Stop being obtuse, stop gaslighting people, and stop spreading disinformation. You're an extremely dangerous socialist with deep mental health issues. - 1 y
@NYCQuestions1976 It doesn't' say any of those things. Of course Vice Presidents cannot possess classified documents, otherwise they'd be incapable of taking over the presidency.
The word innocent appears at least eight times in the document. I love how you "know" that none of those times does it describe Biden (just his actions), but can't be bothered to check if the words you claim are used about him are there or not (they're not, but you're incapable of admitting when you're wrong). - 1 y
@goaded That's exactly what I posted. Vice Presidents are not allowed to possess classified documents, and have no authority to declassify classified documents. WORKING with classified documents at WORK (obviously allowed by Vice Presidents) isn't the same as POSSESSING them. Stop being an obtuse shithead.
Post the page/paragraph where Hur declares/concludes that "Joe Biden is innocent." and/or "Joe Biden is exonerated.", or go walk off a cliff. In the meantime, stop gaslighting people with your dangerous delusional socialism bullshit and stop posting deliberately disingenuous disinformation. - 1 y
@NYCQuestions1976 My God, you're blatently claiming I said the opposite of what I said, now!
Exoneration: "we conclude that the evidence does not establish Mr. Biden's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt." "We conclude that no criminal charges are warranted in this matter. We would reach the same conclusion even if Department of Justice policy did not foreclose criminal charges against a sitting president."
Remember: you take a prosecutor saying they would have said Trump hadn't committed crimes if that was their conclusion as exoneration.
As to classified documents: "Security clearances are not mandated for the President, the Vice President, Members of Congress, Supreme Court Justices, or other constitutional officers.17 The criteria for election or appointment to these positions are specified in the U. S. Constitution, and, except by constitutional amendment, no additional criteria (e. g., holding a security clearance) may be required.18 Further, “by tradition and practice, United States officials who hold positions prescribed by the Constitution of the United States are deemed to meet the standards of trustworthiness for eligibility for access to classified information.” https://sgp.fas.org/crs/secrecy/R43216.pdf - 1 y
@goaded Again, post the part of Hur's report that specifically reads "Biden is exonerated." and/or "Biden is innocent.", or go walk off a cliff.
Vice Presidents' "security clearances" and 'access" doesn't cover their garages at their private residences, and Vice Presidents have no authority or ability to declassify classified documents.
Stop gaslighting people with your disingenuous dangerous socialism bullshit and deliberately spreading disinformation. - 1 y
@NYCQuestions1976 Hello, Mr. Projection! Exoneration: "we conclude that the evidence does not establish Mr. Biden's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt." "We conclude that no criminal charges are warranted in this matter. We would reach the same conclusion even if Department of Justice policy did not foreclose criminal charges against a sitting president."
Trump's document crimes have nothing to do with security clearance, just the ownership of the documents he intentionally stole and lied to the authorities about, and the release of national security information in them to unauthorised people. - 1 y
@goaded Vice Presidents aren't allowed to possess classified documents, and have no authority to declassify classified documents.
Presidents have the authority to declassify classified documents by simply declaring them declassified. The documents that Trump had were so "classified" that the media posted pictures of them all over the news and the internet.
Stop gaslighting people with your disingenuous dangerous socialism bullshit and stop deliberately spreading disinformation. - 1 y
@NYCQuestions1976 OMG! This is the asbestos and the hearsay, and almost every other conversation with you I've had all over again! You're wrong, you must know you're wrong, but you'll keep banging on with the same bullshit over and over again, even when you're shown absolute proof that you're wrong. It's pathological.
1. IT'S THE LAW that Vice Presidents don't need security clearance, so they absolutely are allowed to have access to classified documents.
"Additionally, security clearances and related statutory provisions regarding access to classified materials “shall not apply to the President and Vice President, Members of the Congress, Justices of the Supreme Court, and Federal judges appointed by the President” (50 U. S. C. §3163)
2. The photos were of covers, not the classified documents themselves.
3. The crimes Trump committed don't refer to the classification of the documents, but the fact that they belong to the government and contained national security information that he was mishandling. - 1 y
@goaded At what point did I ever state that Vice Presidents aren't allowed to "access" classified documents? I correctly stated that Vice Presidents aren't allowed to possess classified documents, and they don't have the ability to declassify classified documents.
Not all of the pictures, and none of the images were redacted in any way.
Once a President declassifes classified documents, they're no longer classified documents. They're just documents.
Stop gaslighting people with your dangerous socialism bullshit and deliberately spreading disinformation. - 1 y
@NYCQuestions1976 And how do you know "Vice Presidents aren't allowed to possess classified documents"? What law says that? The law (50 U. S. C. §3163) says they have unlimited security clearance, why would that not apply to taking them home?
Neither presidents nor vice presidents are entitled to keep the documents once they leave office, that's the whole point of the Presidential Records Act, so pretending "Once a President declassifes classified documents, they're no longer classified documents. They're just documents.." is deliberately spreading disinformation.
Mistakes are occasionally made and that's accepted, but what Trump did was anything but a mistake: "after being given multiple chances to return classified documents and avoid prosecution, Mr. Trump allegedly did the opposite. According to the indictment, he not only refused to return the documents for many months, but he also obstructed justice by enlisting others to destroy evidence and then to lie about it. In contrast, Mr. Biden turned in classified documents to the National Archives and the Department of Justice, consented to the search of multiple locations including his homes, sat for a voluntary interview. and in other ways cooperated with the investigation." - 1 y
@NYCQuestions1976 "Not all of the pictures, and none of the images were redacted in any way." Which is it? Not all, or none? Also, you've not been keeping up with your right-wing bullshit sources, who claim that they were all doctored, that "the FBI brought props".
Show me a picture from Mar a Lago with the content of a classified document (or even its title) in it. - 1 y
@goaded How do I know... that water is wet? How do I know... that the sun is hot? How do I know... that the earth is globular? How do I know... that you're a dangerous disingenuous socialist moron? How do I know... that you're gaslighting people? How do I know... that you're deliberately spreading disinformation? Oh yeah, because R E AL I T Y.
Vice Presidents have no authority to declassify classified documents, and they're not authorized to possess classified documents. Especially AFTER they leave office.
Of course you don't believe that classified documents declassified by the President are just documents, because you're a dangerous socialist moron that denies reality and that doesn't understand common sense.
Some images were title/cover sheets, and some images were actual documents. None of all of them shown on the news by the media were redacted, despite them supposedly being "sensitive" and "classified". How is that difficult for you to understand? Oh yeah that's right. You're a dangerous disingenuous socialist moron that's gaslighting people and deliberately spreading disinformation. - 1 y
@NYCQuestions1976 OK, Mr. Projection, I didn't realise you had experience of being a vice president or millennia of proof on your side.
Presidents and vice presidents have absolute security clearance, and decent ones, like Biden and Pence, won't mishandle documents intentionally. None of them had the right to take government documents, classified or otherwise, with them when he left office, they belong to the people, not the former president. That was the whole point of the Presidential Records Act, as you must know.
"Most notably, after being given multiple chances to return classified documents and avoid prosecution, Mr. Trump allegedly did the opposite. According to the indictment, he not only refused to return the documents for many months, but he also obstructed justice by enlisting others to destroy evidence and then to lie about it. In contrast, Mr. Biden turned in classified documents to the National Archives and the Department of Justice, consented to the search of multiple locations including his homes, sat for a voluntary interview. and in other ways cooperated with the investigation."
Say "dangerous socialist moron" a few more times, it will make your case for you and totally not make you look like a deranged fool.
I'm still waiting for that image of genuine classified information you claimed was released by the FBI. - 1 y
@goaded You're just annoyed that I refuse to let you get away with your disingenuous dangerous socialism bullshit, your constant continuous consistent habit of gaslighting people here, and your deliberate act of spreading disinformation.
No Vice Presidents have the authority to possess classified documents outside the function of the Office of the Vice President. Especially after they leave office. Vice Presidents also have no authority to declassify classified documents. That automatically means that any Vice President in possession of classified documents is automatically wrong. You should be an expert at this, considering that you're wrong all of the time.
The FBI isn't the media. - 1 y
@NYCQuestions1976 Whatever, Mr. Projection. You're gaslighting when you claim I said "Vice Presidents have the authority to possess classified documents outside the function of the Office of the Vice President. Especially after they leave office.", since I just very clearly said:
"Presidents and vice presidents have absolute security clearance, and decent ones, like Biden and Pence, won't mishandle documents intentionally. None of them had the right to take government documents, classified or otherwise, with them when [they] left office, they belong to the people, not the former president. That was the whole point of the Presidential Records Act, as you must know.
"Most notably, after being given multiple chances to return classified documents and avoid prosecution, Mr. Trump allegedly did the opposite. According to the indictment, he not only refused to return the documents for many months, but he also obstructed justice by enlisting others to destroy evidence and then to lie about it. In contrast, Mr. Biden turned in classified documents to the National Archives and the Department of Justice, consented to the search of multiple locations including his homes, sat for a voluntary interview. and in other ways cooperated with the investigation." [Hur report]"
OMG, where would the media have got images of classified information found during the search of Mar a Lago from, if not from the FBI? Where's the picture you insist exists? - 1 y
@goaded Your sentence, from yesterday:
"Of course Vice Presidents cannot possess classified documents, otherwise they'd be incapable of taking over the presidency."
If the documents were so sensitive and so classified, then why did the FBI give the media unedited and unredacted images of the documents to plaster all over the news? Answer: It was all a bullshit show.
Stop gaslighting people with your disingenuous dangerous socialism bullshit and deliberately spreading disinformation.
@Juxtapose Exactly. That's true for any President, and that's true for any Vice President. - 1 y
@NYCQuestions1976 Obviously I meant to say "can", not "cannot", otherwise the remainder of the sentence makes zero sense. A bit like this: "If the documents were so sensitive and so classified, then why did the FBI give the media unedited and unredacted images of the documents to plaster all over the news?"
Answer: They didn't. You're wrong. You're also on the wrong side of the right's recent stupid conspiracy theory.
In fact: "“[If] the investigative team found a document with classification markings, it removed the document, segregated it, and replaced it with a placeholder sheet. The investigative team used classified cover sheets for that purpose,” [Jay Bratt, the lead Department of Justice (DOJ) prosecutor now assigned to special counsel Jack Smith’s team] wrote in a recent filing."
Which, of course, the propagandists at the Daily Caller chose to mischaracterise as "The FBI brought props to its raid of former President Donald Trump’s Mar-a-Lago". And you're arguing the opposite!
dailycaller.com/.../ - 1 y
@goaded Of course you meant something else, because you're always wrong. You typing something that's actually correct had to be an accident.
I'm not arguing for or against any of the bullshit you mentioned, because the case is completely irrelevant to anyone intelligent and/or important. Any sitting President has the authority to declassify classified documents, and can do so by simply declaring them declassified.
Stop gaslighting people with your disingenuous dangerous socialism bullshit and deliberately spreading disinformation. - 1 y
@NYCQuestions1976 Yes, typing cannot when I obviously meant can means I'm completely untrustworthy. Idiot. The case against Trump explicitly does not hinge on whether the documents were classified or not, but it does involve the Espionage Act.
Trump's even on tape saying some documents he stole and was showing to nobodies were classified, he could have declassified them back when he was president, but he couldn't at the time. He said that. On tape. War plans. - 1 y
- 1 y
@NYCQuestions1976 The case against Trump explicitly does not hinge on whether the documents were classified or not, but it does involve the Espionage Act.
Trump's even on tape saying some documents he stole and was showing to nobodies were classified, he could have declassified them back when he was president, but he couldn't at the time. He said that. On tape. War plans. - 1 y
- 1 y
@NYCQuestions1976 You know you resort to insulting me when you know you've lost the argument? We're still talking about the documents case, like we have been for days. Thanks for reminding us about the other three, though, including the one where Trump was convicted on all counts.
The others are all still ongoing. Trump's still is still on the hook on racketeering charges to do with trying to steal the election in Georgia, he's been indicted again on the exact same charges by another grand jury in the Jan 6 trial (I think that makes 6 grand juries of citizens that have decided there are crimes he should be tried for), the documents case is being appealed because Judge Cannon just made stuff up to protect Trump from having to go to trial (nobody's saying he's innocent, except Trump).
Come September 26th (or is it 25th?), all the evidence against Trump for the Jan 6 trial will be presented to the judge and made public, probably including the testimony of Republicans in Trump's administration, despite the fact that Trump has managed, with the help of his "justices" on the supreme court and millions of dollars of donations to delay the trial until after the election. - 1 y
@goaded No one intelligent and/or important cares. Find something more constructive to do with your time. For example, work on not gaslighting people with your disingenuous dangerous socialism bullshit and deliberately spreading disinformation.
Just for fun, a partial endorsement list:
Trump endorsements:
Elon Musk
Vivek Ramaswamy
Tulsi Gabbard
Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.
Harris endorsements:
Vladimir Putin
Dick Cheney
Bill DeBlasio
Iran
Side note: The leaders of the Teamsters Union, the biggest labor union in the United States (and historically deeply Democrat), announced that they aren't endorsing any presidential candidates, for the first time in decades. Why? Their rank-and-file were asked which candidate they were voting for, and about 60% of their members said they were voting for Trump. - 1 y
@NYCQuestions1976 "No one intelligent and/or important cares" is your second tell that you know you've lost the argument. Trump cares enough to spend millions in legal fees to delay his trials as long as possible in the hope that he can get some of them to go away as president. An innocent man would have gone to trial.
I'm willing to bet you'd have a fit over a Democrat being let off on a technicality, even if it's not clear they were guilty. Hell, that's what you claim about Biden and the Hur report. But Trump being thrown lifelines by jurors that he appointed and should have recused themselves for that reason alone is A-OK by you. - 1 y
@goaded No, it's a tell that you're foaming at the mouth over bullshit that no one normal, intelligent, and/or important cares about in any way, shape, or form, because you're a delusional and dangerous socialist.
Under normal circumstances, an innocent person would absolutely welcome a trial. However, these cases aren't normal circumstances. They're lawfare bullshit engineered by Democrats that are deliberately taking place during campaign season in an effort to interfere with one of the candidates running for president in this upcoming election. Luckily, the strategy is completely backfiring, as I correctly predicted would happen years ago.
Biden being "too feeble" and "too forgetful" "to stand trial" isn't a technicality. Vice Presidents not being able to declassify classified documents and possess classified documents outside of the duties of their office isn't a technicality.
Stop gaslighting people with your disingenuous dangerous socialism bullshit and stop deliberately spreading disinformation. - 1 y
@NYCQuestions1976 If anyone's foaming at the mouth, it's not me, Mr. Projection.
The Hur report repeatedly explained that there was insufficient evidence to charge Biden. Not only was there enough evidence to charge Trump (six grand juries say so), he's still looking at a sentencing in the one where he was found guilty on all 34 counts, and three more trials. - 1 y
@goaded So says the gaslighting socialist spreading disinformation.
He was probably talking about the television audience. Regardless, you're grasping at straws, because your TDS and socialism has detached you from reality.
Stop gaslighting people with your disingenuous dangerous socialism bullshit and stop deliberately spreading disinformation. - 1 y
@NYCQuestions1976 So Trump imagined he knew what the TV audience was doing?
That's a very small straw you're grasping at, Mr. Projection.
I'll give you a few days to respond to "The Hur report repeatedly explained that there was insufficient evidence to charge Biden. Not only was there enough evidence to charge Trump (six grand juries say so), he's still looking at a sentencing in the one where he was found guilty on all 34 counts, and three more trials.", I'm offline. - 1 y
@goaded He was talking about the television viewing audience 8 days after the debate. I'm sure he reviewed the reaction results with his campaign. Harris, the queen of word salads, yammering, and saying nothing this side of Biden, probably did the same thing with her team.
You mean the 34 counts that were magically engineered out of just one misdemeanor? Where the judge told the jury to "find the crime"? Everyone with a properly functioning brain knows that the case, along with the other cases, are bullshit.
Stop gaslighting people with your disingenuous and dangerous socialism bullshit and stop deliberately spreading disinformation. - 1 y
@NYCQuestions1976 LMAO, "the [TV] audience was absolutely - they went crazy", my people told me! They don't know, either. Trump just doesn't even know when he's lying any more.
Making it 34 counts is perfectly normal because there were 34 documents he was accused of falsifying; making it one count means proving one wasn't falsified (didn't happen) loses the case. You're simply lying when you say: "the judge told the jury to "find the crime"?"
Stop gaslighting people with your disingenuous and dangerous fascism bullshit and stop deliberately spreading disinformation. - 1 y
@goaded A local prosecutor magically turned a single state misdemeanor into 34 federal felonies in a state court in front of a judge with direct ties with the Biden administration, and whom also instructed the jury that they could still find the Defendant guilty even if they couldn't "find" or "identify" the crime. Stop gaslighting people with your disingenuous dangerous socialism bullshit and stop deliberately spreading disinformation.
People being against dangerous socialists and communists like yourself doesn't make them fascists. It makes them intelligent critical thinking people who use common sense in their everyday lives and honor and respect individual personal freedoms. Unfortunately, you're too stupid to understand that. - 1 y
@NYCQuestions1976 ^^ 100% this.
I almost forgot about the information in your first sentence. It really makes me wonder how anyone can be for these kangaroo courts. - 1 y
@Juxtapose @NYCQuestions1976 No, it's bullshit. Precisely what "direct ties with the Biden administration" were there? What about the appeals courts' decisions upholding the judge's rulings? When was it "the judge told the jury to "find the crime""?
Of course, you reject judicial decisions that you like, that's what makes you fascists intending to use the law to your political ends. (And project like hell.) - 1 y
- 1 y
@NYCQuestions1976 Precisely what "direct ties with the Biden administration" were there?
- 1 y
- 1 y
@NYCQuestions1976 The judge's daughter did what? And how is that "a judge with direct ties with the Biden administration"? The judge didn't work for Biden, nor did his daughter work directly for him. www.snopes.com/.../
You think Cannon and the three "Justices" on SCOTUS don't have a conflict of interest in Trump cases although they wouldn't have got those jobs without him. Do you think if their children had ever done work for Trump, that would be grounds for recusal? - 1 y
@goaded Are you fucking stoned? It says "✅ TRUE" almost at the top of the Snopes page! It's a clear conflict of interest, and direct election interference and lawfare harassment of a political opponent!
Presidents Of The United States appoint Justices to the Supreme Court. It's in their job description, and it's been that way since the Washington administration. Read the Constitution sometime.
Stop gaslighting people with your disingenuous dangerous socialism bullshit and stop deliberately spreading disinformation. - 1 y
@NYCQuestions1976 I know it says true (the question being: "Did Daughter of Judge in Trump Hush-Money Case Work for Harris, Biden Campaigns?", not "Does the judge have a conflict of interest?"). Unlike you, I don't deny facts.
What my children, parents, or siblings do has nothing "DIRECTLY" to do with me. There is no "judge with direct ties with the Biden administration" trying any Trump case. The appeals court in the case agrees with me.
What there are, are judges and justices appointed by Trump sitting in judgement over their mentor's cases. Now *that* is a clear conflict of interest, where they're supposed to avoid even the appearence of impartiality. Judge Cannon has been particularly egregious, having already been admonished for overstepping her authority on Trump's behalf TWICE by higher courts. Then she did it again, which decision is under appeal.
Stop gaslighting people with your disingenuous dangerous fascist bullshit and stop deliberately spreading disinformation. - 1 y
@goaded Presidents Of The United States appoint Justices to the Supreme Court. It's in their job description, and it's been that way since the Washington administration. Read the Constitution sometime.
If you don't believe that the judge's daughter working directly for/with Biden, Harris, others in the Biden administration, and other Democrats is a clear conflict of interest, lawfare, election interference, and harassment of a political opponent, then you're even far more egregiously naïve, far more egregiously gullible, far more egregiously obtuse, far more egregiously stupid, far more egregiously delusional, far more egregiously obsessed, and far more egregiously dangerous than I ever realized.
Stop gaslighting people with your disingenuous dangerous socialism bullshit and stop deliberately spreading disinformation. It's become crystal clear that you're a full-blown delusional obsessed psychopath and belong on numerous terrorism watch lists. - 1 y
@NYCQuestions1976 Hello again, Mr. Projection! There are hundreds if not thousands of federal judges who weren't appointed by Trump. Unlike Cannon, an absolute novice, they could be trusted to uphold the law and not slow walk a trial for years to help Trump. Indeed, experienced judges in the same court told her she should recuse herself.
It's also in the constitution and oath of office that the president will uphold the law, not break it. Trump is the first ever former president to be indicted, let alone convicted.
Why don't you read past the first line of things you post in your defence?
"The daughter's employment by Democrats is an insufficient basis for recusal."
"the political views of the judge's children [are not] a basis to recuse."
www.snopes.com/.../
This thing you claim is another lie: "the judge's daughter working directly for/with Biden, Harris, others in the Biden administration, and other Democrats".
She works for a company that does fundraising for the Democratic party, that's in no way "working directly for/with Biden". - 1 y
@goaded You're a gullible fool and an obsessed moron. The Biden administration, the Harris campaign, and the rest of the dangerous far-left are targeting Trump via the Department Of Justice and lawfare in other jurisdictions because they know they can't beat him at the ballot box in November because of their failed shitty administration, and now they're targeting Adams, the mayor of New York City, and also a fellow Democrat, because he spoke out against them and their handling of the southern border and illegal immigration.
- 1 y
@NYCQuestions1976 If there were no crimes, there would have been no indictments brought by any, let alone six, separate, grand juries of citizens. Part of the reason for grand juries to exist is to block unreasonable prosecutions. Trump stole, mishandled, and lied about the documents, he falsified business records to cover up a crime, and he tried to steal the presidency, knowing he lost the election (he's now admitting that, by the way, don't you feel like a fool?)
Adams committed crimes.
Why don't you accept the rule of law? I thought Republicans were supposed to be the party of law and order! - 1 y
@goaded You're just a moron with your head in the sand.
If it's only about prosecuting crimes, and not about refusing to tow the socialist line and calling out the dangerous far-left liberals, socialists, progressives, and the woke in this country, then why did the indictment against Adams only happen now? The crimes he allegedly committed happened back in 2018 and 2021, and were supposedly discovered as early as 2022. That means indictment should've happened in 2022. What changed? Adams criticized Biden and the dangerous far-left in the Biden administration in 2023 and 2024. Cuomo (Democrat governor, New York) committed crimes (cramming Covid patients into nursing homes like sardines). What changed? The dangerous far-left only went after him after he sued the Biden administration. Suddenly he touched dozens of women. Why did all the vitriol from the dangerous far-left against Trump only begin in 2015? What changed? Trump challenged the power of the dangerous far-left in this country. Why was Bob Menendez (Democrat senator, New Jersey) only prosecuted for his crimes AFTER he criticized Obama's plans to normalize relations with Cuba in 2015?
Lastly, if it's just about prosecuting crimes, and only about prosecuting crimes, then where's the federal investigation concerning this?
D. Trump Has Been Indicted For GIVING S. Daniels $130,000. Why Isn't C. McCray Being Indicted For LOSING/MISAPPROPRIATING/STEALING Over $850 Million? ↗
At least $875 million of New York City taxpayer dollars GONE. No criminal investigation, no civil investigation, no financial investigation. NOTHING. Why? DeBlasio and his ex-wife tow the socialist line.
Just keep your disingenuous delusional dangerous socialist head buried. - 1 y
@NYCQuestions1976 So, no argument that Trump hadn't committed all the crimes he was indicted for and convicted of every one that got to trial. That's something.
You keep moning that "socialism" (which in your mind is anything you don't like politically) is dangerous, while undermining the validity of the rule of law, which is really dangerous, - 1 y
@goaded I've already explained in painstaking detail why "34 felonies" was conjured up bullshit to harass a political opponent. You're too damn obsessed and too damn ignorant to understand actual factual reality and lawfare.
The far-left liberals, socialists, progressives, and the woke in this country are the ones who undermine the rule of law, and also undermine the Constitution. Constantly, consistently, and continuously. Leftists only care about enforcing the rule of law when their own illegal bullshit gets challenged by anyone with intelligence and common sense. Your hypocrisy is obnoxious.
Stop gaslighting people with your disingenuous dangerous socialism bullshit and stop deliberately spreading disinformation. - 1 y
@NYCQuestions1976 It doesn't matter how much detail you put into being wrong, you're still wrong, as proven by the conviction of Trump on all 34 counts. You think nobody would have noticed if the indictment wasn't valid?
- 1 y
- 1 y
@NYCQuestions1976 You're claiming to have a "properly functioning brain" and all the lawyers and judges don't? Hah!
- 1 y
- 1 y
As NYC said before..
"A local prosecutor magically turned a single state misdemeanor into 34 federal felonies in a state court in front of a judge with direct ties with the Biden administration, and whom also instructed the jury that they could still find the Defendant guilty even if they couldn't "find" or "identify" the crime. Stop gaslighting people with your disingenuous dangerous socialism bullshit and stop deliberately spreading disinformation." - 1 y
@Juxtapose That's the other case that the New York State Appellate Court is going to overturn. Right now, it's this one about to be overturned:
www.reuters.com/.../ - 1 y
@NYCQuestions1976 ohhhh haha silly me, it's hard to keep track of all the bullshit charges.
- 1 y
I thought @NYCQuestions1976 was talking about the criminal case he was found guilty of all 34 counts, too, for a second. The one that makes him a convict. (Of course, his organisation and CFO have been found guilty of many crimes, as well.)
- 1 y
- 1 y
@NYCQuestions1976 OK. Bet you a dollar they don't.
- 1 y
@goaded You don't learn:
www.reuters.com/.../
The Bragg case will be overturned after the James case, for the reasons that I already outlined in detail, and because Bragg used information that was ruled to be official Presidential immunity privilege. - 1 y
@NYCQuestions1976 You don't read or learn. "I thought @NYCQuestions1976 was talking about the criminal case he was found guilty of all 34 counts, too, for a second. The one that makes him a convict. (Of course, his organisation and CFO have been found guilty of many crimes, as well.) "
- 1 y
@goaded I was initially talking about the James (criminal) case, then @Juxtapose brought up the Bragg (civil) case. Same differences though, in this instance. Both cases are bullshit lawfare, and both cases will be overturned by the Appellate Court. First up, it'll be the James case:
www.reuters.com/.../
Then secondly, it'll be the Bragg case that's overturned by the Appellate Court, for the reasons that I already outlined in detail, and because Bragg used information that was ruled to be official Presidential immunity privilege. - 1 y
@NYCQuestions1976 You're really excelling at providing examples of how you can't admit being wrong. Just look back eight or nine responses to see you bringing up the "civil case", unprompted, in an attempt to "prove" the criminal case (34 guilty counts) wasn't valid.
Me: "@NYCQuestions1976 It doesn't matter how much detail you put into being wrong, you're still wrong, as proven by the conviction of Trump on all 34 counts. You think nobody would have noticed if the indictment wasn't valid?"
You: "@goaded Anyone with a properly functioning brain knows that the entire case and trial from beginning to end isn't valid."
Me: "@NYCQuestions1976 You're claiming to have a "properly functioning brain" and all the lawyers and judges don't? Hah!"
You: "@goaded The New York State Appellate Court is about to agree with me on the bullshit civil case, Dumbass. More soon to follow about what I've been stating all along. The cases are all lawfare, and you're a gullible moron." - 1 y
These cases are 100% lawfare. Hold up.
https://youtu.be/bZ74uT8WcZ8?si=ftjhILTs8wHAhezQ - 1 y
You're a third party; who brought up the civil trial first in this conversation, you or @NYCQuestions1976?
The video includes a clip of a secret recording of someone who was trying to impress a woman, I have actual convictions at a jury trial. My interpretation of the facts wins.
Is your boy Timmy still getting $100,000 a week from Russia? He was when that video was made, anyway. - 1 y
- 1 y
@NYCQuestions1976 I'll keep waiting for @Juxtapose to make a response to "who brought up the civil trial first in this conversation, you [@juxtapose] or @NYCQuestions1976?". Or you could simply admit that you introduced the civil case without ny prompting. But you won't.
Remember: Me: "@NYCQuestions1976 It doesn't matter how much detail you put into being wrong, you're still wrong, as proven by the conviction of Trump on all 34 counts. You think nobody would have noticed if the indictment wasn't valid?"
You: "@goaded Anyone with a properly functioning brain knows that the entire case and trial from beginning to end isn't valid."
Me: "@NYCQuestions1976 You're claiming to have a "properly functioning brain" and all the lawyers and judges don't? Hah!"
You: "@goaded The New York State Appellate Court is about to agree with me on the bullshit civil case, Dumbass. More soon to follow about what I've been stating all along. The cases are all lawfare, and you're a gullible moron." - 1 y
@goaded In that last paragraph/response of mine that you keep posting for some reason, I brought up the civil case (and the Reuters link above and below) as an example and evidence (not direct conversation) as to why the criminal case will be overturned by the Appellate Court, because the civil case happens to be in front of the same Appellate Court right now that will hear the appeal of the criminal case (that's how it works in New York... only one Appellate Court), and those judges are currently expressing extreme doubt when it comes to the civil case during oral arguments that are going on right now. I guess @Juxtapose brought up the civil case because he thought that it was the primary topic of conversation. Regardless, the bottom line is that both bullshit cases are lawfare, and both are going to be overturned, one after the other, by the same Appellate Court.
www.reuters.com/.../ - 1 y
@NYCQuestions1976 You, then: "I was initially talking about the James (criminal) case, then @Juxtapose brought up the Bragg (civil) case."
You, now: "I brought up the civil case..."
Still incapable of admitting even the smallest error, aren't you? - 1 y
@goaded What error? You claimed that the criminal case isn't going to be overturned (which was/is the primary argument), and I rebuttaled your stupidity with information (the link) that clearly suggests otherwise. You're just changing the subject because you can't deal with the fact that the New York State Appellate Court is going to overturn both cases.
- 1 y
@NYCQuestions1976 No, the link is about a completely different civil case, nothing to do with his 34 convictions by a jury. Then you claimed that it was @Juxtapose who brought it up, when it was clearly you: "I was initially talking about the James (criminal) case, then @Juxtapose brought up the Bragg (civil) case."
You lied (or were mistaken), you got caught, you double down because you're incapable of admitting when you're wrong.
- 1 y
@goaded No shit it's a different case, Dumbass. It's relevant evidence that BOTH cases are going to be overturned, because the same Appellate Court is going to hear the criminal case appeal that's currently hearing the civil case appeal, and that Reuters link shows that the judges are in the process of grilling the prosecution's attorney over their strong doubts of the validity of the civil case.
www.reuters.com/.../ - 1 y
@NYCQuestions1976 Why? Why would anyone think both cases would be overturned because one, a civil case with no jury trial, might possibly be? It's nothing like the criminal case where a jury found Trump guilty on all 34 counts. That's just stupid.
Why did you try to pretend that @Juxtapose brought up the civil case, and not you? - 1 y
@goaded I've already explained ad nauseum the numerous reasons why the criminal case will be overturned by the Appellate Court. You're just too stupid, too delusional, and too obsessed to accept the reality that both bullshit cases are lawfare.
Go read the thread, and see how @Juxtapose mentioned the civil case like it was the primary topic of conversation, and how I only mentioned it (with the Reuters link) as further evidence as to why the criminal case will be overturned. - 1 y
Deja vu! "@NYCQuestions1976 It doesn't matter how much detail you put into being wrong, you're still wrong, as proven by the conviction of Trump on all 34 counts. You think nobody would have noticed if the indictment wasn't valid?"
Last time that led to the following, where you brought up the civil case appeal as if it had relevance to the criminal case, which it doesn't, and later claimed @Juxtapose was the one who brought up the civil case, when he just quoted your nonsense about the criminal case. These are obvious documented facts that anyone can check, but you're incapable of admitting error and so keep digging.
You: "@goaded Anyone with a properly functioning brain knows that the entire case and trial from beginning to end isn't valid."
Me: "@NYCQuestions1976 You're claiming to have a "properly functioning brain" and all the lawyers and judges don't? Hah!"
You: "@goaded The New York State Appellate Court is about to agree with me on the bullshit civil case..." - 1 y
@goaded Numerous people with properly functioning brains notice. You're a moron, so you don't notice. However, soon the New York State Appellate Court will force you to notice. Then I will laugh at you. Just like I laughed at you when the Supreme Court handed down their 9-0 decision over states trying to interfere with federal/national elections.
- 1 y
@NYCQuestions1976 The judge, the jury, the defence, the appeals court all failed to notice what you claim. That's because what you claim isn't true.
SCOTUS decided the other thing on the basis that it would create chaos, not because Trump wasn't an insurrectionist (that judgement still stands to this day). - 1 y
- 1 y
@NYCQuestions1976 The legal finding that Trump is an insurrectionist is here:
s3.documentcloud.org/.../...nsurrection-ruling.pdf
And, I repeat: The judge, the jury, the defence, the appeals court all failed to notice what you claim. That's because what you claim isn't true. - 1 y
@goaded You idiot! That dog and pony show wasn't even any sort of a trial! HA HA HA HA HA! That's what you're hanging you hat on? HA HA HA HA HA! You're a full-blown gullible fucking moron! HA HA HA HA HA! I particularly enjoyed the portion of sentence, "he took no effective action" from Paragraph 294, when it's ON RECORD that Trump offered to send the National Guard, Pelosi said, "No.", and her own daughter's audio recording of her has her admitting that she said, "No." HA HA HA HA HA! You're a damn JACKASS! HA HA HA HA HA! Socialism has rotted your already tiny mind! HA HA HA HA HA!
- 1 y
@NYCQuestions1976 Your demented laughter aside, Trump most certainly did not offer to send the national guard during the attack, and nobody did or would have rejected their aid. Trump didn't even tell them to go home until they'd failed, unlike when Governor Walz's home was being besieged by his supporters. When he finally did, they obeyed, as everyone knew they would.
- 1 y
nypost.com/.../
It's real homie. Straight from the horse's mouth. - 1 y
Like I said, propaganda.
These are not the words of someone who had passed up the option to have the National Guard there:
""Why weren’t the National Guard there to begin with?” the former speaker said."
And the response isn't anything like saying Pelosi was responsible:
"McCullough explains that “they thought that they had sufficient resources,” an answer that does not satisfy the California Democrat. "
- 1 y
“As Nancy Pelosi was being evacuated from the Capitol on January 6, 2021 she admitted that, as Speaker of the House, she was responsible for the security failures, and for not having the National Guard at the Capitol,” said Chairman Loudermilk.
“However, after the dust settled from the breach of the Capitol, she spent 20 million taxpayer dollars for her January 6 Select Committee to create a narrative that shifted the blame on President Trump. The Democrats’ partisan select committee went to great lengths to suppress and hide evidence that didn’t support their predetermined narrative about that day, including this video of Speaker Pelosi admitting that she was responsible for the security failures at the Capitol. My committee will continue to investigate and expose all the facts. The American people deserve the truth.”
This video shows Pelosi in a moment of leadership acknowledging that as Speaker of the House it was her responsibility to ensure the safety of Members of Congress that day and every other day. However, Pelosi never publicly took responsibility. Instead, Pelosi created the January 6 Select Committee with the purpose of publicly blaming Donald Trump for her own failures."
cha.house.gov/.../nancy-pelosi-contradicts-her-own-narrative-of-january-6-hbo-footage-shows - 1 y
So Loudermilk lied. What a surprise. What the Post reported doesn't match the claims from either of you. Read the quotes of what she actually said.
""Why weren’t the National Guard there to begin with?” the former speaker said."
These are not the words of someone who had passed up the option to have the National Guard there, and the response isn't anything like saying Pelosi was responsible:
"McCullough explains that “they thought that they had sufficient resources,” an answer that does not satisfy the California Democrat."
Also, do you really believe the whole conversation in the car lasted just 42 seconds? Where's the rest? Where's the context? - 1 y
- 1 y
@NYCQuestions1976 Loudermilk clearly misrepresented what Pelosi said in that 42 second clip that he chose, and you lap it up as if it was gospel. It's sad.
- 1 y
@goaded It's the epitome of hypocrisy for you to call the New York Post link that @Juxtapose posted "propaganda". You're a dangerous disingenuous socialist. Everything you say, do, post, and believe is nothing but bullshit and propaganda. That's the same New York Post that was censored by Facebook, Twitter, other online sites, and the left-leaning mainstream media at the behest of Biden and his administration in October 2020 when they broke the 100% TRUE, FACTUAL, and ACCURATE laptop story. So go shit in a hat and eat it for dinner.
- 1 y
@NYCQuestions1976 Oh, come on. "Why weren’t the National Guard there to begin with?” is not something someone who knew it was their fault would say, now is it?
That's what makes it propaganda. The NY Post and a Republican representative took something out of context (there's no way the whole conversation lasted just 42 seconds) and lied about even that.
As to the laptop story, it was suppressed for a few days at most and it looked 100% like Russian disinformation. It came out, too close to the election to properly vet, via Guiliani, who'd been sitting on it for months. Even Fox News wasn't interested, it smelt so bad! It didn't have any evidence against his father, either.
Guiliani's since been disbarred for his lies about the 2020 election, owes about $150 million for defamation for lying about election workers, and organised the planting of the "report" of bribes to Biden with the FBI (by Alexander Smirnov, currently awaiting trial for lying to the FBI), and has been indicted multiple times.
No smoke there, no sir! - 1 y
- 1 y
@NYCQuestions1976 Only you refuse to be right about anything. Who was president when the Hunter Biden laptop story was "censored"?
- 1 y
@goaded I meant "at the behest of Biden and his *campaign* in October 2020". (I'm at work, not in my basement drooling, like you.) Me using the incorrect word doesn't change the fact that Biden requested that Facebook, Twitter, other online media platforms, and the left-leaning mainstream media bury the laptop story. Zuckerberg admitted that earlier this year in front of Congress. Also, if the "Big Guy" wasn't going to be incriminated by anything on that laptop, then why did Hunter do a 180°, suddenly change his tune, and plead guilty in his federal case? I'll save you the trouble, Dipshit. It's because every single drop of information on that laptop would've been made public during that trial, and Joe Biden would've been buried in a world of shit. So stop gaslighting people with your disingenuous dangerous socialism bullshit and stop deliberately spreading disinformation.
- 1 y
@NYCQuestions1976 It's still not censorship if it's not the government (and it was Trump's government at the time) doing it. It's citizens lobbying private companies, which is perfectly reasonable.
As for Hunter, he's negotiating. - 1 y
@goaded You never fail to be a naïve and gullible simpleton. Socialism has completely rotted your already tiny mind.
Private citizen? Biden was the previous Vice President and running for President at the time, had the full Democratic party leaning on all of those online platforms and all of the mainstream media outlets to bury that 100% true story, and all just weeks before the election. It was most certainly censorship. Similar to when Clinton, Wasserman-Schultz, and the rest of the Democratic party conspired to bury Sanders and his campaign in 2015 and 2016.
Negotiating? He pled guilty to keep his father from being buried in a world of shit that the laptop would've caused him in exchange for a pardon from the "Big Guy" before he leaves office. - 1 y
@NYCQuestions1976 Was Biden in the government in 2020? Yes or no.
- 1 y
@goaded Get it through your thick skull and empty head that in October 2020, while running for President, Joe Biden, his campaign, and the Democratic party, led by Schumer, Pelosi, and other elected Democrats, coerced Facebook, Twitter, other online platforms, and the left-leaning mainstream media to censor a 100% true story about Hunter Biden and his laptop. That's censorship and election interference. Zuckerberg testified under oath in front of Congress earlier this year and admitted that this happened.
- 1 y
@NYCQuestions1976 "coerced"? How? The Biden campaign was not the government, and the story looked so much like Russian disinformation even Fox News wouldn't touch it. Why would anyone believe anything Guiliani told them?
coerce:
* To restrain by force, especially by law or authority; to repress; to curb.
* To use force, threat, fraud, or intimidation in an attempt to compel one to act against their will.
- 1 y
@goaded I've got no doubts that Zuckerberg, Dorsey, the rest of the majority of online media platforms, and the left-leaning mainstream media outlets, all vocal Biden supporters, didn't need to be convinced very hard ("Oh PlEaSe StOp TwIsTiNg My ArM!") to bury and censor the 100% true laptop story. However, in the eyes of the law, it's still coercion.
@Juxtapose ⬆️ Get a load of @goaded 's efforts to explain away Biden's, his campaign's, and elected Democrats' coercion of Facebook and Twitter to censor and bury the 100% true story of Hunter’s laptop in October 2020. ⬆️ - 1 y
@NYCQuestions1976 Why would anyone believe anything Guiliani told them in the run up to the 2020 election? Once again, you can't coerce someone you have no power over, it's not censorship when it's not the government, and the story smelt so bad even Fox News wouldn't touch it.
Seriously, look at Guilani's downfall for lying for Trump. - 1 y
- 1 y
@NYCQuestions1976 No, I'm saying you don't know or care what the words mean. Those corporations could make up their own minds, and, like Fox News, they thought the story stank.
- 1 y
@goaded I know exactly what those words mean, and they're absolutely applicable here. They most certainly did not make up their own minds. They had their minds made up for them by coercion from Biden and the Democrats to censor the 100% true laptop story. Zuckerberg testified under oath in front of Congress earlier this year admitting that's exactly what happened in October 2020. Go be obtuse and/or in denial somewhere else.
- 1 y
@NYCQuestions1976 Do you though? Asking for something is not coercion. You can't be coerced by someone who has no power over you. Censorship is not consensual, and requires government actors. Do you think Musk would do anything to suppress the Hunter Biden laptop story if it came out today?
Do you think that's because he's a free-speech absolutist? How about when he suspended the account the journalist who posted to an article containing a link to the Trump oppo research on Vance? Apparently, Xitter also blocks links to the document.
The journalist is Ken Klippenstein, and the document's here: www.kenklippenstein.com/.../...5b-95701be97310.pdf - 1 y
@goaded So Pelosi and Schumer had no positions of power when they "asked for something" from Facebook and Twitter in October 2020? It was fucking coercion, Dumbass... and Zuckerberg testified under oath in front of Congress earlier this year, confirming that fact. Go be a gullible fool somewhere else.
- 1 y
@goaded Per Google via The Hill:
""Ken Klippenstein was TEMPORARILY SUSPENDED for violating our rules on POSTING UNREDACTED PRIVATE PERSONAL INFORMATION, specifically Sen. Vance’s PHYSICAL ADDRESSES and the MAJORITY of his SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBER,” the spokesperson said."
I knew you were full of shit. Took me 5 seconds to prove your disingenuous dishonesty. - 1 y
@NYCQuestions1976 Was that the first, second, or third excuse? You know Klippenstein wasn't the only journalist to have their account suspended that day, right? Is his account back?
You're intentionally missing the point that at the end of the day, Twitter could have chosen not to do what even powerful people ASKED them to do. - 1 y
@goaded No, MORON. They weren't "asked". They were COERCED. You're also moving the goalposts and attempting to change the subject. You can't compare someone publishing a high-profile person's private identifying information with coercion and censorship. Individuals in this country have a legal right to privacy. Particularly when it comes to something like a social security number. The New York Post and/or their related outlets that had the laptop story never tried to disseminate Hunter Biden's personal address or his social security number.
- 1 y
@NYCQuestions1976 So Pelosi could force Musk to take down a story she didn't like? Bull shit. And WTF with "a high-profile person's private identifying information"? The NYPost posted pictures of Hunter naked, and he wasn't a public figure! Public figures, actual ones like JD Vance, have a far lower right to privacy in the US. "Most of..." is not a whole social security number.
- 1 y
@Juxtapose So Pelosi could force Musk to take down a story she didn't like? Bull shit. And WTF with "a high-profile person's private identifying information"? The NYPost posted pictures of Hunter naked, and he wasn't a public figure! Public figures, actual ones like JD Vance, have a far lower right to privacy in the US.
- 1 y
@Juxtapose It's not just inappropriate to deliberately share another person's social security number with third parties without that person's permission, it's completely illegal.
@goaded No, because Musk actually has a backbone, unlike Zuckerberg and Dorsey. Also, Hunter Biden abandoned that laptop, he didn't have passwords or any encryption on it, everything on there he put there himself, and his residential address and social security number weren't shared with the general public by the New York Post.
You're pivoting because you know you're wrong yet again. - 1 y
@NYCQuestions1976 @Juxtapose Since you're both sticklers for the truth and honesty, I'm sure you'll be pleased to hear that the supposedly shared social security number excluded the final four digits, so your fake outrage is completely unfounded. Mostly, it just says issued in Ohio.
Now, back to the difference between coercion and reasonable requests by people without the power of the government backing them: "No, because Musk actually has a backbone" is an admission that the Biden campaign didn't do the former, merely the latter. - 1 y
@Juxtapose He states "excluded the final four digits". That makes everything perfectly fine! 😂
@goaded Since you don't live here, I'm actually willing to let you slide (at least momentarily) as I explain to you why that's not a defense. The last 4 digits of a person's social security number are the easiest to get, because they're frequently used in various verification processes. It's the first 5 numbers that are almost always redacted. People frequently confirm who they are (like when filling out medical forms or when doing automated phone banking, for examples) by submitting "the last 4 digits of your social security number", along with things like "date of birth", etcetera. If the first 5 numbers of a person's social security number somehow became public knowledge, I can guarantee with just about 100% certainty that the last 4 numbers are absolutely public knowledge. - 1 y
@NYCQuestions1976 It makes guessing it a one in 10000 chance. Any organisation that asks for the last four digits knows the whole thing.
- 1 y
@goaded Okay, slide's over. You had your chance that you didn't even deserve in the first place. Now I happily eviscerate your blatant stupidity.
It's not about guessing. It's about making it easier for thieves that perform data breaches and steal identities. It's a lot more difficult to get the first 5 numbers of a social security number than it is to get the last 4 numbers of a social security number, for the reasons that I already outlined. Klippenstein knew exactly what he was doing. It's illegal to disseminate a person's social security number with third parties without that person's prior knowledge and consent.
Stop changing the subject because you can't deal with the fact that you're wrong about the Democrats coercing Facebook and Twitter into censorship. - 1 y
@NYCQuestions1976 he will gaslight and he has all the bullshit narratives ready as soon as these stories come out. I'm starting to think he is either really passionate about this or he is a paid agent.
- 1 y
@NYCQuestions1976 No, it's not. The first five digits are to do with the state and date the SSN was allocated, and that's relatively easy to predict from a birth place and date. And he never did "disseminate a person's social security number", no matter how much you'd like to pretend he did, or that Musk was right to censor him. You say that's censorship, right, even if it wasn't by the government?
- 1 y
@Juxtapose I am passionate about truth, honesty, and democracy, three things you apparently care nothing about.
- 1 y
@Juxtapose Yep! ⬆️ More gaslighting. ⬆️
@goaded You're passionate about socialism bullshit and bowing to your government overlords. - 1 y
@NYCQuestions1976 yeah it amazes me how comfortable he is with people's private information getting leaked. Elon did the right thing, as usual.
- 1 y
As usual, when you have no argument, you focus on illogic, nonsense and trivialities, showing your hypocrisy.
Musk wouldn't have done what the Biden campaign asked, but Twitter was "coerced" into "censoring" by that exact same request. If you can say "no" without consequence, there's no censorship or coercion.
When Musk blocks access to information on Trump's behalf, you claim that's perfectly reasonable. Nothing in the Trump document about Vance is not public information, and Vance is a public individual, unlike Hunter where pictures of him naked were published.
"In preparing this background report, we undertook an examination of all readily available and relevant electronic and online records, several hundred Nexis and news articles, dozens of active and archived web pages, and several dozen public records from Nexis and the resources of various federal, state, and municipal government offices."
web.archive.org/.../...-43a1-8d78-acfb340302b2.pdf - 1 y
@Juxtapose The love that @goaded has for intrusive albatross government overlords and his disdain for individuals' personal freedoms and privacy is disgusting and dangerous.
@goaded No one disseminated Hunter Biden's social security number, nor was it written on his naked body, which wasn't password protected and/or encrypted on the laptop (which also wasn't password protected and/or encrypted), and was abandoned by Biden at the repair shop.
Go be stupid somewhere else. - 1 y
@NYCQuestions1976 No-one disseminated JD Vance's SSN, either. Go tell your lies somewhere else.
- 1 y
@goaded You admitted yourself that Klippenstein disseminated the first 5 digits of Vance's social security number. As I've already explained, the way we use our social security numbers in this country, it was no different than disseminating all 9 digits. So shit in a hat and eat it for dinner.
- 1 y
@NYCQuestions1976 So what are the other four digits? I (the authors, really) also explained that the dossier was composed from publically available information.
- 1 y
- 1 y
@NYCQuestions1976 I expect that's why they only shared part of it. Of course, they were lying, they were working for Trump. Did you know the hackers got the document by pretending to be Gini Thomas, Clarence Thomas' wife, in an email to Roger Stone. Apparently, that was a believable contact.
- 1 y
- 1 y
@NYCQuestions1976 Yes, Iran seem to be the hackers. Now tell me how upset you were about Trump asking Russia to get Clinton's emails the day before Russia hacked Podesta's. Harris doesn't want or need Iran's help. Also, the wife of a sitting SCOTUS "justice" is on friendly terms with the man who registered https://stopthesteal.org back in 2016.
I'm sure you've got no problem with the fact that "During the 2016 election, Vance openly opposed Trump, announcing his intention to vote third party and express[ed] doubt about Trump's effectiveness. His critical views extended to likening
Trump to heroin and dismissing the ‘MAGA’ movement as a ‘quick high.’"
How about how Vance's law firm lobbying for CCP related companies? (As an aside, did you see that "Trump Bibles" are made in China and cost him $3 a copy?) Every accusation is a confession. - 1 y
@goaded Wah, wah, wah. You need to take Adderall. Or stop taking Adderall. Either way, there's something seriously wrong with you.
Pelosi tweeted in May 2017 that the 2016 election was stolen, when no such thing occurred. Collusion was a debunked bullshit story engineered by Hillary Clinton and her campaign cronies. Nothing but gaslighting, disinformation, and bullshit from the left.
Yeah, Vance didn't/doesn't like Trump. Neither do I. However, as I stated many times, I don't need to like Trump to vote for him. Trump's against socialism, the United States will never be a socialist country, and that's good enough for me.
So let's review, since it's been a while:
Trump endorsements:
Elon Musk
Vivek Ramaswamy
Tulsi Gabbard
Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.
Harris endorsements:
Vladimir Putin
Dick Cheney
Bill DeBlasio
Iran - 1 y
@NYCQuestions1976 The Trump who's selling $3 Chinese bibles to suckers (and schools in one state where purely by coincidence they're the only one of hundreds of bible editions to match the new standard)? The Trump who sent rare and expensive Covid test equipment to Putin without even getting a single American hostage back?
One tweet saying the election was "hijacked" is nothing like the flood of lies about the 2020 election and Trump still not admitting he lost until recently.
By the way, how does Trump finally saying he lost make you feel? You've spent nearly four years believing his bullshit. He lost, he knew he'd lost, he lied to you, and it's 100% his fault the hundreds of people went to prison based on their response to his lies on Jan 6. - 1 y
- 1 y
@NYCQuestions1976 Go buy a Trump bible. Only $60.
Do YOU believe the government can control the weather? ↗ - 1 y
- 1 y
@NYCQuestions1976 I can't be bothered starting yet another conversation where you show yourself pathologically incapable of admitting error, only because you just proved beyond any doubt that you don't know the difference between climate and weather.
- 1 y
- 1 y
@NYCQuestions1976 I know what sarcasm is, and it's not lying and laughing about it, which is what you seem to think.
- 1 y
- 1 y
@NYCQuestions1976 Of course it is. (That, by the way, is real sarcasm.)
- 1 y
1 yTrump really disappointed me. He took the advice from hundreds of Political pundits and decided to be nice that day. It wasn’t the Trump we were all used to. Trump’s strength is him being a counter puncher. But he wasn’t that person at the debate.
All Kamala did was spew lies, but her base is OK with that. And I’m upset that Trump even agreed to go on ABC. Anyone with a brain can tell you that that debate was three against one.
But I would hardly say that Kamala won, because she couldn’t even answer any questions.
I remember when Trump challenged Joey to a golf match and a debate without moderators. I have never heard of a debate without moderators, but it was a brilliant idea. Of course, Joey was afraid to do that.
Trump needs to do the same thing now with Kamala. He should say he changed his mind and he will be willing to debate her again but only on Fox and no moderators.
Kamala would go into hiding and never mention this subject again.128 Reply- 1 y
@Val713
Why didn't they fact check Kamala? - 1 y
- 1 y
@exitseven No, they'd lie for Trump. Not the same thing.
- 1 y
@exitseven
Smart people will agree with that. - 1 y
@guacamole409 While that is true, Trump had every reason to believe ABC would do this, and he could have done better if he was a better debater. Someone who had never been a good debater in truth, and someone who always goes to talk to everyone and tries to address every issue.
This is what makes Trump a good Executive but bad politician because unlike other politicians obsessed with their image he actually tries to address the issues regardless of how it looks and ended up getting a lot of things done that had not been done in decades.
Because Trump isn't afraid to get dirty.
That said because Kamala didn't answer the key questions technically she forfeited all points for the same and lost the debate no matter how much you might like or not like Trump's style of answers.
An executive doesn't have the option of simply ignoring issues. They have to do their best to address that which is given them, or they lose by default.
Trump missed opperunties to hit back that a better debater or politician like Ron, or Vance would not have. But you don't need bonus points to win against someone who doesn't even finish. - 1 y
@exitseven You're mistaken. ABC said it was illegal in every state to kill a baby. Abortions in the final months are almost invariably because of fetal abnormalities, as Harris correctly said.
- 1 y
@monorprise
I must have heard 100 people giving advice to Trump and telling him to be nice at the debate. Huge mistake. - 1 y
@exitseven
I remember that. I don't need to see polls to see when something is rigged. She refused to answer that, and the mods let her skate. - 1 y
- 1 y
@goaded Foreign nationals the federal goverment dumped into communities creating cultural problems and making locals uncomfortable or even unsafe. Including but not limited to eating their pets, is a federal issue because the federal Government put them there without naturalizing them creating friction with the locals.
I don't really care about rally size as that is trump's personal issue, if Kamala wants to talk about it Im going to ignore it.
AS i said before I really don't want the federal goverment making any healthcare policy period. The concept should be repeal plan and simple.
- 1 y
- 1 y
- 1 y
- 1 y
- 1 y
- 1 y
- 1 y
@NYCQuestions1976 ^^ pretty much.
Ask to an AI Persona
Advisor Smith
With years of experience guiding individuals in their education and career paths, I'm here to...
Gamer Bella
With my passion and experience in hobbies and leisure activities, I'm here to offer personalized...
Cinematic Lily
With my rich background and passion for the arts, I share insights on films, TV shows, and...
Love Doctor Brad
Welcome to the heart of understanding and transformation. I am your guide on this journey to...
James The Foodie
From savoring Italian classics to discovering the bold flavors of Japanese cuisine, I explore...
Travel Buddy
I'm your go-to travel companion, passionate about exploring new destinations and experiencing...
Laura
Have questions about GirlsAskGuys? I'm here to help!
Athletic Chloe
Whether you need tips on improving your game, insights on fitness and nutrition, or just want to...
Fashionista Amy
I'm here to inspire and guide you with a touch of latest trends or advice on personal style.💅👒
What Girls & Guys Said
0
Opinion
23Opinion
1 y
10 Reply- 1.8K opinions shared on Society & Politics topic.
1 yBecause the media said so. I might be crazy. I feel crazy saying it but I feel like it's just all fake. Everyone who believes what they believe gets funneled into where they belong and for all we know 75% of the country voted for Trump and there's just an unimaginable amount of chicanery that goes on to sustain the illusion that these elections are so close.
And it's a system which runs itself due to a lot of setup by some very clever and influential people.
Maybe it's always been that way, maybe it's a new thing. Maybe through history this kind of thing has a way of happening and it comes and goes. But there's something that feels so intentional and man made about how these stories unfold and the polling results including how their conducted and the stuff that gets big attention.
It's why part of me has a hard time even caring. I feel like that's the conversation we all need to be having.
129 Reply- 1 y
"for all we know 75% of the country voted for Trump" No. The electoral system is decentralised and run by individual states. You can't involve tens of thousands of people in a con and not have the truth come out. While it takes a long time, justice can happen, ask Giuliani and Fox News about the billion dollars they owe the people they lied about.
@goaded that's not how it works. If Hitler thought like you, he would have never killed so many jews.
The fact is people are en masses brainwashed. There are several videos on social media that have popped up and disappeared over the years of people who openly said they threw away trump ballots, and felt like they were doing a good thing. I've seen clips of people saying they're going to volunteer specifically so they can throw away his ballots.
And how can you call that justice if none of the other news agencies are held accountable for their lies?
Fox's crime was that they weren't aligned with the right political party. Not that they lie more than anyone else.
It's a moot point when you're having a discussion about corruption in the highest levels of government. And let's not forget that what Trump ran on originally was what we all already knew.
These people do the bidding of whoever pays the most. They will change laws and alter news stories.
These companies have billions of dollars from what? Advertisers? Yea right. A news agency only gets that big from being paid millions at a time by people with access to billions.@goaded you mean like someone too dumb to actually accomplish anything as harmful as one of the biggest genocides in recorded history? Yea sure.
Only he wasn't, so maybe it would be a good idea to learn from that guy so we can recognize that he's not the only one who can do it.
I don't even mean it as an insult the guy was obviously insanely clever and extremely cunning. It would be foolishly not to assume the same about our own people in power when both sides demonstrate the same skills on a constant basis.And there's plenty of examples of that.
@goaded really? So you think even for some people who are crazy and weren't a good representation of jews it never happened in the 5 thousand years that Judaism has existed? Not even once did a group of people get together and decide to murder catholics? Seems far fetched to me. And I'd say the same for pretty much any religion.
- 1 y
Like when you ignored what I said: "Jews murdering Christians **for rituals**"? Some nutcase doing something stupid is not going to be for a religious ritual because there is no such ritual in the Jewish faith.
Pretending that Haitians are eating people's pets is akin to the lies Nazis told about Jews, and it's dangerous. @goaded how can you say that? It doesn't matter if they're crazy, if it's the year 1500 and you live in a village and you see people who dress like jews acting suspiciously around children what are you going to think? How do you think that information is going to be passed down orally through hundreds of years?
Think about how wrong and misleading information can be now with Google, the internet and by far, more educated people.
I think it's pretty silly to just completely dismiss that nobody has ever had a reason to think that these things have taken place and knowing how fucked up people are it's probably almost impossible some people haven't done such things under the cover of a religion.
If tamerlan can practically take over most of the known world at the time using religion and the catholic church can go on 3 crusades, how is it unreasonable to think that in the thousands of years these religions exist, maybe among the pleth of other corrupt individuals and groups within, some of them could have been doing some weird rituals. Or even what might have appeared to be a ritual to someone looking from the outside.
Or even framed them for it.
It's such a close minded way of thinking and is based in not wanting to accept that at the end of the day, from the greatest, most virtuous person to the worst, most evil were all human and have the same capacities.- 1 y
Occam's razor. There's been no evidence of Chinese restaurants serving cat or dog meat, there's been no evidence Haitians doing the same, and no evidence of Jews sacrificing Christian children.
There are, however, plenty of people willing to make up and repeat lies, and today that includes the leaders of the Republican party. @goaded lmao it's funny you say that because one of my first jobs was as a pizza an at a chicken spot. I was good friends with both the owners and one thing we used to love to do was laugh everytime a Chinese place got caught with dead dogs in the freezer. It happens in NYC a lot. Or at least back then it did.
You know in some places, cat and dog is considered a sort of delicacy right? What's funny is I feel like the dems focus on the part where it's a cat or dog and regular people focus on the fact it's someone's pet.
I'm sure a good amount of it is lies but it's pretty distasteful to act like it's coming completely out of nowhere when there's regular people going to their local town hall meetings talking about the reckless behavior of some of the immigrants and videos all over the internet of de-skinned, four legged, cat sized meat on a grill.
So you're bringing up occams razor. But it doesn't work if you completely disregard the facts you don't like.- 1 y
These are not the words of a regular person: "In Springfield, they're eating the dogs. The people that came in. They're eating the cats. They're eating -- they're eating the pets of the people that live there."
So the pet eating thing was false? ↗
I expect you were laughing because it was a joke. Yes, dog meat is eaten in Korea and parts of China, but also yes, it matters whether they bred for meat or pets.
Most importantly, all the cases I've found online have been lies. www.snopes.com/fact-check/hot-dog-dog-meat/ talks about one, this site changed the name of the supposed criminal by one letter for this "report" notallowedto.com/.../, this link is dead lansingdaily.com/.../ but the same site also "reported" "A Louisville man who called 911 after showing symptoms of a heart attack is now suing the hospital where doctors accidentally performed a C-section on him." - 1 y
@Telekinetic-Potato I have shown these people many testimonies by residents of Springfield and I live in Ohio myself. It IS happening, people don't just show up to town halls or start talking about their pets being eaten out of nowhere.
- 1 y
@Telekinetic-Potato
Of course shitlibs deny reality. I debunked goaded about Trump's "very fine people" common in a very specific way using Snopes.. and he denied it. - 1 y
@goaded you're a fucking liar.
"We looked into these claims, and found that while Trump did say there were "very fine people on both sides," meaning both the protesters and the counterprotesters, he also condemned neo-Nazis and white nationalists outright and said he was specifically referring to those who were there only to participate in the statue protest."
www.snopes.com/fact-check/trump-very-fine-people/
@Telekinetic-Potato see how he blatantly lies to me even though I prove him wrong again and again? Is he a paid agent? - 1 y
Why don't you read the whole thing?
"However, the accuracy of what Trump did claim – that there were "very fine people on both sides" of the 2017 Unite the Right debacle – is in question."
"Editors' Note: Some readers have raised the objection that this fact check appears to assume Trump was correct in stating that there were "very fine people on both sides" of the Charlottesville incident. That is not the case. This fact check aimed to confirm what Trump actually said, not whether what he said was true or false. For the record, virtually every source that covered the Unite the Right debacle concluded that it was conceived of, led by and attended by white supremacists, and that therefore Trump's characterization was wrong." @goaded what a ridiculous thing to argue over. Obviously when he said that it was to try and get everyone to calm down. As soon as you as a leader start attacking a group you aren't willing or are unable to destroy, you become vulnerable and so does your tribe.
This is the difference between the dems and Trump. The dems want to drum up as much drama as possible make it as difficult as possible for us to share one of the biggest land masses in the world. And then they villify anyone who tries to settle issues amicable.
People say Trump won because they are delusional, and evidently in a cult. I would know, I've got an aunt that is in a church that even controls what she can eat and says she can't take medicine because "dependence on medicine is demonic."
When people can't accept objective facts, and have to defend their side beyond all reason, you aren't dealing with a sane person.
I never watched all of the debate, but I've seen clips. Both Biden and Trump seemed lost in the first one. But clearly Trump lost this one...
Trump just rambled most of the time, and he just made up lies about people eating pets. Like, it is literally a meme now that people actually think pets are being stolen and eaten. Like, just how stupid can Republicans be...
213 Reply- 1 y
First of all Biden was the ONLY one that looked lost. I challenge you to share one clip of Trump looking "lost".
Second, Trump had to debate three people, in which two of them blatantly helped KUMala repeatedly lie. Trump may have lost his cool, but he by no means lost the second debate. KUMala was coddled like a new born baby.
So your opinion, and that's all it was, that Trump lost that debate is made out of ignorance and the lack of the most basic of critical thinking skills. - 1 y
@PreferNot2Say
Trump always looks lost in all clips...
Trump lost the debate, it wasn't 3 on 1, it was Trump lying and getting fact checked live. If he doesn't like getting fact checked, he shouldn't keep lying.
Trump lost the debate, which is a fact, because he didn't know anything, and lied the entire time. - 1 y
I will give you the same answer I gave someone else @val713
"I can't take you seriously when you refuse to acknowledge things like how the debate was a rigged 3v1. Harris had personal connections to each of the moderators, that alone is a conflict of interest. Linsey was a sorority sister of Harris for instance.
Not to mention they did not fact check her once, even when she mentioned the "very fine people" hoax that was debunked by Snopes xD They even tried the fact check if Trump was sarcastic or not.
But in your little world there was nothing wrong with that debate whatsoever and it was perfectly fair. Imagine if Trump had debate moderators that had positive personal history with him on a right leaning network.. do you think Harris would step up to the plate? Of course not, she has to have everything rigged in her favor. A whistleblower even says she received sample questions ahead of time and got to dictate things like camera angles and what topics would be discussed." - 1 y
The "whistleblower" couldn't string a sentence together, it's a hoax. Also, not one question couldn't have been anticipated by the candidates, and the follow-up questions weren't scripted.
Don't you think it was the responsibility of moderators to point out obvious untruths?
You're like the Republicans in Minnesota who sued to be allowed to knowingly disseminate election-related information that is false or intended to impede another’s right to vote within 60 days of an election. - 1 y
@goaded your subjective judgments on stringing together a sentence means nothing. She was handed sample questions and is Buddy Buddy with numerous people within ABC.
Absolutely NOT, especially when they are biased pieces of shit. I want the candidates to make their own case without being interrupted by some bullshit moderator who's not running for president. I don't care if one of the moderators think Trump is not being genuinely sarcastic, his opinion matters for nothing!
I don't believe that last paragraph at all. - 1 y
"Minnesota Law Prohibiting Election Disinformation and Voter Intimidation Upheld by Federal Judge"
“Minnesota undoubtedly has a compelling interest in reducing misinformation aimed at preventing someone from voting.”
www.democracydocket.com/.../
"The law — which is part of the state’s 2023 Democracy for the People Act — also imposes criminal prohibitions on voter intimidation via threats of force, coercion or violence. " - 1 y
Well, since disinformation is essentially lies, it's fairly easy. All you have to do is compare the statements to the facts.
I know that's an anathema to you.
Will Trump's tax plans cost the average middle class family "nearly $4,000", as Harris claimed? One study puts the amount at $3,900, others put them as low as $1,350 per year. So, Trump's plans will cost them, but possibly not "nearly $4,000" (but it could be).
Are Haitians eating cats and dogs in Springfield, Ohio? No. The Trump campaign (as well as ABC) checked with the city and knew before the debate that it was not true. Trump made the claim anyway with reckless disregard for the truth.
See? Simple. - 1 y
@Val713 You'd have to be an inbred mental midget to actually believe that horse 💩. Then again you admitted yourself that you hadn't watched the entire debate. So then how can you be so sure of what you're claiming? You aren't sure, but you still regurgitate what your media spoon-feeds you like the overgrown toddler you are proving yourself to be. Grow tf up jr.
27.1K opinions shared on Society & Politics topic. At first pass it might have looked like Harris's polished and rehearsed performance was better that Trump's uneven performance. However after people realized that ABC and the moderators slanted the debate in Harris's favor and that the fact checkers gave her a good leaving alone and only fact checked Trump and one time they said that Trump was wrong and it turned out he was right a lot of people changed their minds.
I suppose that since the objective of the debate was to convince undecided independent voters to vote for one candidate over the other than President Trump definitely won. There were two polls by liberal outlets that found that undecided independent voters preferred President Trump 2 to 1 after the debate.
13 Reply- 1 y
33 lies to 1 thing that lacked context (only one study said Trump would cost families about $4000, the others estimates were as low as $1350!). Of course they fact checked Trump more.
You're believing nonsense about the polls, too. Internet polls mean nothing; it's like asking people in a bowling alley if they like bowling.
From 23 undecided voters, this group went from 12 probably Harris, 10 probably Trump to 5 definitely, and 10 probably Harris, 6 probably Trump (0 definitely Trump).
www.washingtonpost.com/.../
- 2K opinions shared on Society & Politics topic.
1 yHarris was definitely more "poised" than Trump (which was really easy for her to do, because she wasn't challenged by the moderators at all the entire night... especially when bringing up at least 4 debunked bullshit stories/points), but she most certainly didn't win the debate. She didn't lose either, for the same reasons; her total and utter nonsense when completely unchecked and unchallenged.
194 Reply- 1 y
- 1 y
Yes, because she didn't tell dozens of lies. Trump did say "fine people on both sides" and "stand back and stand by", referring to people spending years in prison for sedition. Russia did and is interfering in your election on Trump's side. Maybe Trump didn't mean a literal bloodbath, but his supporters are calling in bomb threats based on his lies. Trump refused to say he would veto a national abortion ban that has been proposed by multiple Republican representatives, and the people who wrote Project 2025 wrote something similar for 2017, and Trump implemented most of it.
- 1 y
- 1 y
- 1 y
I'm guessing you haven't actually read the Mueller report or the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence report.
Trump did say "fine people on both sides" and "stand back and stand by", referring to people now spending years in prison for sedition. Russia did and is interfering in your election on Trump's side. Maybe Trump didn't mean a literal bloodbath, but his supporters are calling in bomb threats based on his lies. Trump refused to say he would veto a national abortion ban that has been proposed by multiple Republican representatives, and the people who wrote Project 2025 wrote something similar for 2017, and Trump implemented most of it. - 1 y
- 1 y
We all know you're pathologically incapable of admitting being wrong about anything (see: asbestos can remain suspended in a vacuum). Putin was joking, he's been paying right-wing assholes like Tim Pool to make trouble,
Trump did say "fine people on both sides" and "stand back and stand by", referring to people now spending years in prison for sedition. Russia did and is interfering in your election on Trump's side. Maybe Trump didn't mean a literal bloodbath, but his supporters are calling in bomb threats based on his lies. Trump refused to say he would veto a national abortion ban that has been proposed by multiple Republican representatives, and the people who wrote Project 2025 wrote something similar for 2017, and Trump implemented most of it.
- 1 y
- 1 y
- 1 y
- 1 y
- 1 y
- 1 y
For something to be suspended, there has to be a fluid (liquid or gas) for it to be suspended in. A vacuum is the absence of either, and nothing will be suspended in a vaccuum in the presence of gravity. That's physics, You're pathologically incapable of admitting error, even when physics disagrees with you.
- 1 y
- 1 y
Suspension: "The state of a solid or substance produced when its particles are mixed with, but not dissolved in, a fluid, and are capable of separation by straining"
You need the fluid (gas or liquid). A vacuum is an absense of fluid. Nothing remains "suspended in a vacuum", by definition. It would just break your brain to admit being wrong about anything, wouldn't it?
Trump did say "fine people on both sides" as well as "stand back and stand by" to people now spending years in prison for sedition. Russia did and is interfering in your election on Trump's side. Maybe Trump didn't mean a literal bloodbath, but his supporters are calling in bomb threats based on his lies about people eating pets. Trump refused to say he would veto a national abortion ban that has been proposed by multiple Republican representatives, and the people who wrote Project 2025 wrote something similar for 2017, and Trump implemented most of it. - 1 y
- 1 y
- 1 y
- 1 y
- 1 y
- 1 y
- 1 y
- 1 y
I'm not changing the subject, you claimed "Socialists/socialism = dangerous and wrong.", I pointed out things you must therefore thing are "dangerous and wrong", like Social security, Medicare, and Medicaid. Are they "dangerous and wrong" or not socialism?
"That means you're automatically wrong about everything at all times."
And that's another example of the subject: @NYCQuestions1976 is often wrong and pathologically incapable of admitting it.
- 1 y
@goaded Again, you're changing the subject, unless your point is that you support endless government support for able-bodied and able-minded lazy people and illegal immigrants, which would be on par with your overall stupidity.
You, a dangerous disingenuous socialist, calling me wrong proves by default that I'm always correct. - 1 y
- 1 y
@Juxtapose Your country has people who think fertilised eggs should have rights, France thinks born people should have privacy rights over their DNA. Which is more sensible?
@NYCQuestions1976 You think everything you say is "100% true and accurate", that's your problem. - 1 y
Correction:
@Juxtapose Your country has people who think fertilised eggs should have the same rights as a born person, France thinks born people should have privacy rights over their DNA. Which is more sensible?
@NYCQuestions1976 You think everything you say is "100% true and accurate", that's your problem. - 1 y
@goaded what do you mean? In the USA it is up to the states and therefore the voters to decide on the abortion deal. Personally I think abortion should be okay until the brain stem develops but oh well, people are going to have different opinions on when it's okay to kill a developing human being.
- 1 y
What do *you* mean? For two generations, women had the right to an abortion "for the first trimester of pregnancy, [SCOTUS] cast the abortion decision and the responsibility for it upon the attending physician.". States could pass laws outside that period.
Now they don't.
"voters can decide to have all the abortion rights they want" ignores the fact that women are dying while people wait for a chance to vote (and Republicans try to avoid giving people that chance).
France allows DNA tests for certain purposes, but their bioethics law doesn't allow for private use. It's hardly a life-or-death decision, unlike forcing a woman to carry a pregnancy to term or a dead fetus until her life is in imminent danger. - 1 y
- 1 y
- 1 y
@goaded None of the states with "full bans" ignore exceptions:
www.britannica.com/.../US-abortion-rights-by-state-2236312
So again, glass houses. Also, other than Texas, the states with "full bans" are the least populated states in the country. Furthermore, from Alabama to Wyoming, and all the states in between, it's none of your damn business. - 1 y
@goaded Oklahoma represents approximately 1.216% of the total population of the United States. Slightly more than half the people in Oklahoma are women. That's approximately 0.61% of the total population of the United States.
That's what was voted for in Oklahoma. Glass houses, and it's none of your damn business. - 1 y
It's still a whole state of 4 million (bigger than 21 states in Europe) that has an absolute ban on abortions with no exceptions. Other states have an effective ban (6 weeks), and doctors are afraid to provide life saving procedures in case they're accused of performing an abortion in others. Women are dying waiting for their chance to restore the rights they and their mothers grew up with.
- 1 y
@goaded roe v wade was an improper legal decision and they should have been ready for this eventuality to begin with. Codifying it in the Constitution was stupid, it should have always been left to the states.
In France you are not a free person because you don't even have the right to have a private DNA test without the permission of Big Daddy government.
And if you are that concerned about life or death situations with reproduction, live in a state that is not super restrictive with abortion stuff. Vote with your feet and don't be a moron. - 1 y
@goaded @Juxtapose Abortion isn't a "right", because there's no abortion amendment. Abortion isn't Constitutional, and abortion isn't unconstitutional, because abortion isn't mentioned either way in the Constitution. Abortion was never a law, it was a decision in a court case. Democrats had control of the House, Senate, and White House numerous times in the decades following the Roe Verses Wade decision, and they never did anything to make it an actual national/federal law at any time. So blame Democrats. Now it's up to each of the 50 States, where it belongs.
@Juxtapose People in Oklahoma don't have to move. They can just travel to Kansas if necessary. Abortion pills are also still available nationwide.
@goaded Doctors aren't afraid to carry out their duties. The fact still remains that approximately 78% of the population of the United States has abortion access that EXCEEDS every country in the Union Of European Socialist Republics. Glass houses, and it's still none of your damn business.
Stop gaslighting people with your disingenuous dangerous socialism bullshit and stop deliberately spreading disinformation. - 1 y
Oh haha that explains it @NYCQuestions1976 I should have known to look it up but I had to go somewhere.
@goaded why ya gotta gaslight me man 😂 You're making up stuff. - 1 y
@Juxtapose Oklahoma is the only state without exceptions for the surgical procedure itself, but the pills are nationally/federally legal. However, 14 states are still trying to fight the legality of the pills and ban them, including Oklahoma:
usafacts.org/.../
Of those 14 states, Texas is the only one with a large population. So it's still true that approximately 78% of the population of the United States has abortion access that EXCEEDS every country in the Union Of European Socialist Republics. - 1 y
@NYCQuestions1976 That means one in five don't, and no European country bans abortions (or is trying to).
- 1 y
@NYCQuestions1976 Abortion in the first trimester was a right, because SCOTUS decided it was, on the same basis as contraception, same-sex and interracial marriage (wanna bet Thomas won't touch that last one?)
Unless you can show me a European state with a total ban on abortions, you're the one in a glass house. - 1 y
@goaded Each state is voting on their abortion access limits, or lack of limits. It's none of your damn business, it's none of the federal government's business, and approximately 78% of the total population of the United States has abortion access that EXCEEDS every country in the Union Of European Socialist Republics. So go shit in a hat and wear it, Glass House.
- 1 y
- 1 y
- 1 y
- 1 y
- 1 y
- 1 y
- 1 y
- 1 y
Reality and honesty is EVERYONE's damn business! You just want to spout lies without contradiction. YES, "approximately 78% of the population of the United States [has] abortion access that EXCEEDS every country in the Union Of European [union]? BUT THE OTHER 22% DON'T! They don't have access to abortion, and that's the only point.
- 1 y
- 1 y
@Juxtapose He so desperately wants abortion to be a bigger issue than it really is, because the current Democrats in this country have absolutely NOTHING else to offer voters in the United States. This issue is currently the only one that Republicans across the country aren't aligned with the majority of the population (approximately 65% of the total population is pro-choice up until around 16 to 20 weeks), and he knows that.
- 1 y
What the f*ck are either of you talking about? 22% of the US population have no access to abortion in ther home state, true or false?
Your responses: "Who the fuck cares" and "Republicans across the country aren't aligned with the majority of the population".
@Juxtapose: "who the fuck cares?"
@NYCQuestions1976 "This issue is currently the only one that Republicans across the country aren't aligned with the majority of the population (approximately 65% of the total population is pro-choice up until around 16 to 20 weeks), and he knows that."
It's a fucking democracy, morons! - 1 y
@NYCQuestions1976 yeah they're really fixated on the abortion nonsense when you can vote with your feet on what laws you want to live under.
- 1 y
@Juxtapose Not just that, but the states that have banned or are trying to ban abortion pills are going to lose when the cases go to the Supreme Court (probably 9-0 or 8-1), for the same legal reasons that Colorado and Maine lost 9-0 when they tried to remove Trump from the ballot in a federal election. The pills are nationally/federally legal.
@goaded The United States is a Constitutional Republic, MORON. - 1 y
The United States is too a democracy! ↗
SCOTUS will also respect precedent. Until it doesn't. - 1 y
- 1 y
- 1 y
455 opinions shared on Society & Politics topic. Because those people are morons, Trump would have destroyed her even more, if they didn’t automatically make up new rules for the Debate. Which to me was absolutely pathetic , that they all of a sudden made up new rules cuz they knew Trump would really rip her a new asshole if they didn’t put those rules into place.
11 Reply- 2.9K opinions shared on Society & Politics topic.
1 yMaybe try a real polling company. NONE of them are all that good, but some are still better than others. At least one of the ones mentioned here are known for "fake news". It's not even a real company, and they just make shit up.
You automatically know that none of those polls are remotely legitimate when they show the number of votes, and the time that's left. That is in no way whatsoever a legitimate poll.
120 Reply- 1 y
It makes a difference because that kind of thing is not in any way a scientific poll. There is absolutely nothing to make it representative. It's completely meaningless.
- 1 y
Why don't you go to the Democratic or Republican conventions and poll people coming out the door? It would be just as meaningless. In either case you could mention people who "cared enough to vote", yet you would get completely opposite outcomes.
- 1 y
Um, wrong. But whether they are or not, those kind of polls are NOT scientific and should never ever be considered viable. The only way to make it remotely scientific is to have complete control over who votes. But even then it still won't be truly scientific due to the fact that it's online.
Even some of the biggest, highest quality polling companies are pretty unreliable. That's why they are notoriously unreliable with presidential elections. The very best companies usually, but not always, pick the winner correctly, but they tend to be way off on the numbers. - 1 y
You're not too bright are you?
- 1 y
Your last statement totally misses the point and is irrelevant. I say you are not too bright because there is no other way to respond to it. You are totally not getting it. It's apparently completely over your head.
- 1 y
"I say you are not too bright because there is no other way to respond to it."
Oh the irony!
Don't you realize the popular vote is decided by self-selected voters? You could poll every single person in the country and that is not going to be representative of who is actually voting for what because most people don't even fucking show up to vote! - 1 y
Look at the poll results.
78%
91%
57%
92%
That in itself should tell you that there is something VERY wrong with those polls. - 1 y
"And if you really think people support Harris?"
I never said that. I said the polls are garbage, because they are.
If those are legitimate polls, how do you explain such a wide variation? They should be within a few percentage of each other. That aren't because they are garbage. That are NOT legitimate polls.
Do I think Harris will win the election, which is the only poll that matters? Yes, I think she will not only win, I think she will win by a landslide. - 1 y
How could she win when she was the first to lose in the Democrat primaries and she could not even get through a debate on her own? She had to have her hand held. And even in the CNN interview, she couldn't even last half of the full hour even with her running mate with her holding her hand.
- 1 y
"She" can win because it's not really her that's running. She was thrown in at the last minute. Most candidates have years of planning and preparation. She is nothing but a mouthpiece for the Democrat Party. She is scripted with the Democrat game plan which they already had in place. That script actually works better with her than with Biden.
- 2.5K opinions shared on Society & Politics topic.
1 yI mean…. All of them are on Twitter which is a far right platform that is forever falling down. Only people left are mainly right wing so…. The numbers would be skewed.
https://www.youtube.com/embed/DeD-xLWA4ro
RFK Jr, Brett Baier, Matt Walsh, Elon Musk, and others admitted Kamala Harris surpassed expectations & did overall better than Trump:12 Reply- 1 y
- 6.3K opinions shared on Society & Politics topic.
1 yHarris was the perfect politician. 90 minutes and said very little about herself and her policies. She had the better strategy... attack Trump and put him on the defensive, which he mostly fell for, Besides, it's hard to lose when you know the questions beforehand and the moderators refute Trump's statements without you having to.. 😐
02 Reply- 1 y
Like many of his followers, Trump used the "fire hose of lies technique" which is an argument technique in which the arguer bombards their opponent with as many lies as possible in an as short a time as possible. The idea is that the opponent will then have to use up their time refuting each and every lie. A good counter to this technique is simply to ignore the lies, which is what Harris did. This is an effective response which I often use on here myself. I don't feel obligated to refute lies by MAGA.
1 yThey think people are too stupid to see what actually happened in that debate. They think if they say something that it automatically makes it true. The mass majority of the Americans are waking up and they're terrified of that.
10 Reply- 8.6K opinions shared on Society & Politics topic.
1 yTwitter polls? Really? C'mon!!!
10 Reply - 602 opinions shared on Society & Politics topic.
1 yI can’t wait to troll all MAGA after Trump loses 😆
013 Reply- 1 y
A SECOND time.
Yeah you keep laughing when kamala floods your neighborhood with criminals and taxes you out of your home. But hey at least she dosent say mean things on the internet
- 1 y
It definitely beats electing them.
I honestly LOVE my neighbors who are immigrants. They make me the best food and are way nicer than the Christians down the street. And to think the criminal still does a better job than one that's in power now
- 1 y
All politicians are criminals. Trump is going to face his deserved sentences in the many court trials to come. He’s not seeking presidency he’s seeking immunity. He could care less about you and the rest of his followers. He even had his loyalists thrown in prison for his lies. I’ll vote for anybody before him, honestly.
Could care less if he cares about me or not. Facts is we were all better off when he was in charge. No wars, no inflation, lower taxes, energy independence, the list goes on.
- 1 y
lol you must live on another planet. US has always been at war, buddy 😆
- 1 y
You honestly believe Trump helped with taxes? He doesn’t even pay them himself! Throw his ass in prison and throw away the key!
Good. I've seen what government does with money. Anyone who skips out on thier taxes I'd oknin my book.
- 1 y
MAGA: “Don’t let in immigrants because they don’t pay taxes!”
Also MAGA: “Trump for president because he refuses to pay taxes!”
Lol the irony of it We don't let immigrants in because they human traffic and commit a lot of crime, not all of them mind you but a statistical enough percentage of them. No other nation on earth puts up with unsecured borders why should we.
- 1 y
I know more whyte criminals that commit those crimes. A shining example is Jeffery Epstein, Trumps best friend.
Actualy epstein was Clinton's best freind. Aswell as bidens best freind. And are you saying that child trafficking is ok to you along as the person doing it is not white?
- 1.2K opinions shared on Society & Politics topic.
1 yIt's called media bias. The media is there to sell you the candidate thier sponsors want elected.
10 Reply - 2.3K opinions shared on Society & Politics topic.
1 yBecause Trump had no substance. Trump said he had a concept of a healthcare plan which was a far cry from his numerous promises that he did have one and would reveal it in 2 weeks... Well, those 2 weeks never came.
219 Reply- 1 y
Again, he promised to show us his plan numerous times when he was president. If you choose to still believe him... I can't help you.
- 1 y
Would you believe anyone else who told you that they had something and promised you that you'd get it over and over and never gotten it and then, says that only had a concept of it? What would happen if you tried that shit with your parents?
- 1 y
Trump has no plans. He has no plans for healthcare or childcare. The only plan he has are tax cuts for the rich and more tariffs than will jack up things 10% you learn about tariffs in highschool.
- 1 y
- 1 y
- 1 y
- 1 y
- 1 y
- 1 y
They DO live in a world of make believe.
20 Reply- 5K opinions shared on Society & Politics topic.
1 yIdiocy no more no less.
10 Reply 
1 yGaslighting. Like her entire campaign.
10 Replypopulation retardation
10 Reply8.2K opinions shared on Society & Politics topic. To keep the narrative going.
10 Reply
1 yBecause they're paid to say that?
10 Reply11.6K opinions shared on Society & Politics topic. get serious.
05 Reply- 1 y
I can't take you seriously when you refuse to acknowledge things like how the debate was a rigged 3v1. Harris had personal connections to each of the moderators, that alone is a conflict of interest. Linsey was a sorority sister of Harris for instance.
Not to mention they did not fact check her once, even when she mentioned the "very fine people" hoax that was debunked by Snopes xD They even tried the fact check if Trump was sarcastic or not.
But in your little world there was nothing wrong with that debate whatsoever and it was perfectly fair. Imagine if Trump had debate moderators that had positive personal history with him on a right leaning network.. do you think Harris would step up to the plate? Of course not, she has to have everything rigged in her favor. A whistleblower even says she received sample questions ahead of time and got to dictate things like camera angles and what topics would be discussed. - 1 y
Dude it is actual fact that Harris had personal connections with the staff, one of them was her fucking sorority sisters. Not to mention they did not fact check her once, even when she mentioned the "very fine people" hoax that was debunked by Snopes xD They even tried to fact check if Trump was sarcastic or not.
And you think that was legit? Are you fucking serious? - 1 y
You could really look this up yourself man.
nypost.com/.../
www.snopes.com/fact-check/trump-very-fine-people/
https://youtu.be/bwykJLpJmIs?si=muLWn5GxnCYGfJlM
2.9K opinions shared on Society & Politics topic. The truth lost.
00 Reply
1 yI am not sure
00 Reply
Show More(18)
The only opinion from girls was selected the Most Helpful Opinion, but you can still contribute by sharing an opinion!
Click "Show More" for your mentions
Continue reading 
Did ABC give Harris the debate questions in advance?
Dargil
Master · Age 36 Add your reply For "{0}"
Most Helpful Opinion(mho) Rate.
Learn more
Learn more
We're glad to see you liked this post.
You can also add your opinion below!
