Page 3 of 9 FirstFirst
1
2
3
4
5
... LastLast
  1. #41
    Quote Originally Posted by Spectral View Post
    Approximately zero people decided this. Thinking that this is what your political opponents think is a real failure to engage with their positions.
    thats literally the #1 thing i see self proclaimed trump supporters say on this forum.

  2. #42
    Quote Originally Posted by arandomuser View Post
    thats literally the #1 thing i see self proclaimed trump supporters say on this forum.
    That they hate democracy and love Russia because they have to trigger libs? Quote it.

  3. #43
    Quote Originally Posted by Spectral View Post
    That they hate democracy and love Russia because they have to trigger libs? Quote it.

  4. #44

  5. #45
    Quote Originally Posted by arandomuser View Post
    Good to know that left wing authoritarians now agree with the right wing in the us that a few individuals represent an entire group.
    "It doesn't matter if you believe me or not but common sense doesn't really work here. You're mad, I'm mad. We're all MAD here."

  6. #46
    Quote Originally Posted by Saucexorzski View Post
    Good to know that left wing authoritarians now agree with the right wing in the us that a few individuals represent an entire group.
    Left wing authoritarian LUL im not a sanders stan, im actually voting for a neoliberal, bloomberg/klobuchar/biden. And yes you can tell that is a prevailing ideology when no trump supporter has a problem with preferring russians, a foreign autocracy over democrats. Just like how sometimes sanders stans are way too comfortable with anti semites, trump supporters are also way too comfortable with russian stooges ( manafort, mike flynn, lev parnas, roger stone, carter page, erik prince, rex tillerson)

  7. #47
    Titan Lenonis's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Chicago, IL
    Posts
    14,390
    There is something about this situation with the DOJ and Stone that I don't understand...

    If Trump truly feels this whole thing is a sham trial why doesn't he just pardon Stone? Does he need to be sentenced first? Is there some other technical reason why he can't?

    You can't tell me it's because of the optics...Trump's base would love it and that's all he cares about. Why get Barr to reduce sentencing for a trial Trump feels isn't legit at all?

    Something doesn't add up here.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Spectral View Post
    Approximately zero people decided this. Thinking that this is what your political opponents think is a real failure to engage with their positions.
    "Own the libs" is the core philosophy of a non insignificant part of the Trump base. Maybe not the rest but you can't really argue that piece.

    That isn't exactly a stellar stance to have.
    Forum badass alert:
    Quote Originally Posted by Rochana Violence View Post
    It's called resistance / rebellion.
    Quote Originally Posted by Rochana Violence View Post
    Also, one day the tables might turn.

  8. #48
    Quote Originally Posted by arandomuser View Post
    snip
    So is it okay to cherry pick examples to represent the broad population or not? I'm always forgetting the rule, unless this another "rules for thee but not for me" thing.

    Plus, considering how anyone who strays from the accepted narrative gets labeled a Russian asset/bot:

    Tulsi doesn't play nice with establishment Democrats: Russian asset.
    Movie gets bad reviews: Russian bots.
    Someone in Trump's cabinet once mentioned Russia at some point in the past: obviously a Russian agent.

    I'd say we're all Russian all this blessed day!

  9. #49
    Quote Originally Posted by pionock View Post
    So is it okay to cherry pick examples to represent the broad population or not? I'm always forgetting the rule, unless this another "rules for thee but not for me" thing.

    Plus, considering how anyone who strays from the accepted narrative gets labeled a Russian asset/bot:

    Tulsi doesn't play nice with establishment Democrats: Russian asset.
    Movie gets bad reviews: Russian bots.
    Someone in Trump's cabinet once mentioned Russia at some point in the past: obviously a Russian agent.

    I'd say we're all Russian all this blessed day!

    she was never called a russian asset, thats literally fake news

    clinton never NAMED tulsi

    she said there was a FEMALE candidate, that was a FAVORITE of the russians, meaning she believed tulsi had policy that russia would like, which is undeniable.
    She said that female candidate is an asset to republicans in dividing the dem party like sanders did in 2016


    get your facts straight before you spew BS.


    And yes russian bots are real it was well documented in the mueller report, mueller a life long establishment republican, someone you cant call a "triggered lib" And alot of people in his campaign team have been indicted for lying about connections to russia to congress. its literally a fact.
    Last edited by arandomuser; 2020-02-12 at 03:09 PM.

  10. #50
    Quote Originally Posted by pionock View Post
    So is it okay to cherry pick examples to represent the broad population or not? I'm always forgetting the rule, unless this another "rules for thee but not for me" thing.

    Plus, considering how anyone who strays from the accepted narrative gets labeled a Russian asset/bot:

    Tulsi doesn't play nice with establishment Democrats: Russian asset.
    Movie gets bad reviews: Russian bots.
    Someone in Trump's cabinet once mentioned Russia at some point in the past: obviously a Russian agent.

    I'd say we're all Russian all this blessed day!
    naw naw, for the everyday american its if you don't vote for our political betters in the democratic party then you become a russian asset.
    "It doesn't matter if you believe me or not but common sense doesn't really work here. You're mad, I'm mad. We're all MAD here."

  11. #51
    Quote Originally Posted by Saucexorzski View Post
    naw naw, for the everyday american its if you don't vote for our political betters in the democratic party then you become a russian asset.
    no, you could of easily voted for bush, marco rubio, kasich, ted cruz, or ben carson, who werent favorites of the russians, ( not assets or agents, favorites)

    Instead in the primary you chose a guy who asked the russians to hack hillarys emails because he " triggered the libs" when other candidates would get the same policies but with less lawbreaking and help with the russians, so i do have to believe that the russian assistance is a feature of your support for trump that the other candidates lacked

  12. #52
    Quote Originally Posted by arandomuser View Post
    no, you could of easily voted for bush, marco rubio, kasich, ted cruz, or ben carson, who werent favorites of the russians, ( not assets or agents, favorites)

    Instead in the primary you chose a guy who asked the russians to hack hillarys emails because he " triggered the libs" when other candidates would get the same policies but with less lawbreaking and help with the russians
    naw, ill stick to voting 3rd party. i don't like the authoritarian left or right wing in the us all that much thanks.
    "It doesn't matter if you believe me or not but common sense doesn't really work here. You're mad, I'm mad. We're all MAD here."

  13. #53
    Quote Originally Posted by arandomuser View Post
    she was never called a russian asset, thats literally fake news

    clinton never NAMED tulsi

    she said there was a FEMALE candidate, that was a FAVORITE of the russians, meaning she believed tulsi had policy that russia would like, which is undeniable.
    She said that female candidate is an asset to republicans in dividing the dem party like sanders did in 2016


    get your facts straight before you spew BS.


    And yes russian bots are real it was well documented in the mueller report, mueller a life long establishment republican, someone you cant call a "triggered lib" And alot of people in his campaign team have been indicted for lying about connections to russia to congress. its literally a fact.
    God damn, what a weaselly thing to say. And here I thought dog whistling was supposed to be all around us, now it's absolutely required that Hillary specifically call her name, lest we be confused with Amy "Who"buchar and Chieftess WineAunt.

  14. #54
    Quote Originally Posted by Spectral View Post
    Approximately zero people decided this. Thinking that this is what your political opponents think is a real failure to engage with their positions.
    Stop making a fool out of yourself.


    On topic:


  15. #55
    Titan I Push Buttons's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    Cincinnati, Ohio
    Posts
    11,244
    Quote Originally Posted by Thekri View Post
    I think this is most likely. It is worth noting that this whole mess is about sentencing recommendations, and the Judge can ignore them if they like. That isn't to belittle the significance of what Barr did today. This was bad, like historically bad, because it places the Justice Department squarely on the side of protecting Trump's friends, rather then... Justice.

    Still, the Judge can ignore the unjust Justice Department, and sentence what they like, but Trump is already considering a pardon out loud, and I can't think of any incentive he might have to not do it. He is essentially immune to impeachment, and it isn't going to change the opinion of anyone that currently likes him. So I would put a very strong probability that Stone gets pardoned.
    Why bother attempting to interfere with the sentencing if Trump is going to inevitably pardon him? Whether he is sentenced to one year, five years, ten years, even a hundred years in prison, it would make no difference if Trump is going to pardon him regardless.

    I know Trump is a literal retard, but it makes no sense whatsoever to get involved in this unless he wasn't going to pardon him... If he is going to pardon him, doing this ONLY hurts him, it doesn't accomplish anything at all, legitimately nothing to be gained in even the slightest way; all it does it make him look even worse than he already does and increases the scrutiny on him even further.

  16. #56
    Quote Originally Posted by I Push Buttons View Post
    Why bother attempting to interfere with the sentencing if Trump is going to inevitably pardon him? Whether he is sentenced to one year, five years, ten years, even a hundred years in prison, it would make no difference if Trump is going to pardon him regardless.

    I know Trump is a literal retard, but it makes no sense whatsoever to get involved in this unless he wasn't going to pardon him... If he is going to pardon him, doing this ONLY hurts him, it doesn't accomplish anything at all, legitimately nothing to be gained in even the slightest way; all it does it make him look even worse than he already does and increases the scrutiny on him even further.
    Because he probably heard by now that a accepting the pardon is an admission of guilt, and then they can squeeze Stone for more information.

  17. #57
    Hopefully history books will be this kind


  18. #58
    so Trump is just openly bragging about putting Barr on the case to give Stone a good deal.

    Awesome, that's cool that we're just not even dressing up naked corruption.

  19. #59
    Quote Originally Posted by UnifiedDivide View Post
    Wonder how long we'll have to wait for Trump to just pardon Stone and be done with it.
    If the judge doesn't give him a slap on the wrist probably pretty soon, Barr and Graham have already shown they are fine with launching political investigations for Trump. This is going to be one fine mess.

  20. #60
    Maybe Trump's impeachment victory is the second best thing that could happen for Democrats. Now Trump feels he is free to be himself. So, we get to see how well open and blatant corruption plays to anybody not drinking the Kool-Aid.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •