TRUMP 2016

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer

even steal a service animal

---

fucking what

*googles*

https://i.pinimg.com/originals/0e/00...647afd916f.jpg

*googles more*

fucking what

Someone obviously never has run across a seeing-eye dog? Or a dog which is trained to detect epileptic seizures?

uh, which word in there do you think i was reacting to?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer

The asshole threatened to kill a witness and even steal a service animal. You just don't hand a person like that a summons.

---

Dude is already walking around on bail, get real.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lewkowski

Dude is already walking around on bail, get real.

---

I hope they make sure he doesn't go near anyone's dog.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lewkowski

Dude is already walking around on bail, get real.

---

Something else you hate when it's a black man rather than a middle or upper class white.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy

Because all of a sudden, when it's a middle to upper class WHITE GUY, all your constant demands for overwhelming force are suddenly a bad idea because a probable criminal might get injured or killed before their trial. You CHEER when black people suspected of being criminals get shot. Your racist little shit.

Your article mentions how this happens because the people of Fairfax County don't really care. That's because they're all exactly like you.

---

I wonder where he gets it from.

Twitter Link

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Steely Glint

Another one:

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...-seven-charges

---

Steely, I thought you'd want to hear this from me: this is, by far, the most consequential information that has come out of the Mueller investigation to date. The rest of the indictments are generally of peripheral importance - people lying when it was a crime to do so, or Russians who we already know interfered in the election and have no chance of being brought to justice. Even the Cohen allegations that implicate Trump in some campaign finance violations is relatively tame and highly unlikely to result in an impeachment.

But some of the allegations in the Stone indictment seem to clearly link the campaign to Wikileaks (and, by extension, the Russian intelligence establishment). It appears that Stone's correspondence implicates him in coordinating the timing and content of Wikileaks' email dumps to meet the needs of the campaign. The information to date is still a bit unclear - notably who on the campaign was aware of and/or directing Stone's efforts, whether he actually coordinated with Wikileaks or just claimed their timing as his success, and to what degree the campaign was aware they were cooperating with a Russian intelligence operation. But on the face of it, this seems to be a clear link between the campaign and a Russian intelligence front, where the release of illegally obtained documents was timed to weaken the Clinton campaign and distract from Trump's campaign challenges late in 2016, notably the Access Hollywood tape and subsequent accusations.

Obviously there's more digging to be done and Stone may have exaggerated his role in all of this. But if this link is borne out, I think that your long-held assertion that the campaign (and, potentially, the President) were directly colluding with Russian intelligence to influence the election may indeed be correct. Mea culpa.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy

Something else you hate when it's a black man rather than a middle or upper class white.

---

Non-violent crimes don't need SWAT teams.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lewkowski

Non-violent crimes don't need SWAT teams.

---

Best to use overpowering force to over-awe anyone thinking of doing something stupid. That's your mantra elsewhere. It would be your mantra here if he wasn't a white Trump supporter.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy

Best to use overpowering force to over-awe anyone thinking of doing something stupid. That's your mantra elsewhere. It would be your mantra here if he wasn't a white Trump supporter.

---

You're stupid. If Hillary was arrested there would be no need for SWAT. Ditto for people who have also clearly lied under oath (take your pick Mcabe or Comey since their testimony directly contradicts one of them lied under oath as part of an official investigation). Unless there is substantial reason to believe that the person is going to resist arrest or respond with violence why would you bring SWAT? Call the dude's lawyer and he'll show up the next day and you damn well know it. Add to the fact they tipped off reporters for the arrest? This was obviously *obviously* done for political reasons.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lewkowski

Add to the fact they tipped off reporters for the arrest?

---

yeah... this didn't actually happen. Stone getting pinched surprised absolutely no one. Mueller has a pattern in his work, and the last time he disrupted his pattern was for indictments. CNN took a gamble on who was next, and they almost didn't catch anything because they were also expecting Stone to have the chance to turn himself in.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer

yeah... this didn't actually happen. Stone getting pinched surprised absolutely no one. Mueller has a pattern in his work, and the last time he disrupted his pattern was for indictments. CNN took a gamble on who was next, and they almost didn't catch anything because they were also expecting Stone to have the chance to turn himself in.

---

You are quite gullible. CNN has a history of questionable activity, of course sometimes they are the ones tipping off others. ;)

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...=.44533d8f0440

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lewkowski

Non-violent crimes don't need SWAT teams.

---

Violent crimes like stealing toothpaste from a store?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lewkowski

You are quite gullible.

---

This is gold coming from the guy who immediately latched onto a conspiracy rather than reflect on the threat that his heros might be bad people.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lewkowski

CNN has a history of questionable activity

---

Yes, it's definitely CNN who are the shady guys in this scenario.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lewkowski

You are quite gullible. CNN has a history of questionable activity

---

You're alleging "questionable activity" on the part of the FBI in this instance, not CNN. I don't know whether the FBI lets news orgs know when they're about to go arrest someone, but it would be kinda counter-productive given they do things this way if they consider the suspect to be a danger or a flight risk. If you have reason to dispute CNN's account of how their reporters came to be at Stone's house before the arrest--other than your general distrust of non-Trumpist media--then you're welcome to share. More importantly, if you have reason to believe that the FBI tipped CNN off, please share.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loki

Violent crimes like stealing toothpaste from a store?

---

I don't recall a SWAT team for that one. In fact I don't recall any police presence in that story.

Posted for posterity, https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/polit...uaB?li=BBnb7Kz

Guess he never saw the movie 'Day After Tomorrow'.

There's something slightly pathetic about the fact that conservatives are still doing their "I stuck my head in my fridge and it was very cold SO MUCH FOR GLOBAL WARMING" routine, as if it were some kind of devastating zinger against climate science, in the year of our lord 2019.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Being

Posted for posterity, https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/polit...uaB?li=BBnb7Kz

---

Reminded me of this: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.6aef4cfc611a


Also, it's becoming clear that Trump's stint in military school didn't do much to improve his Oppositional Defiant Disorder.

Waming. I didn't notice this until The Late Show pointed it out. I think his security people figured out a way to permanently disable his accounts from using spell check in order to protect against gaffs worse than misspellings.

According to climate scientists from the 2000s era we have passed the point of no return, so no sense worrying about it. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lewkowski

According to climate scientists from the 2000s era we have passed the point of no return, so no sense worrying about it. :)

---

Like many, many things in life that doesn't mean what you think it means.

I've got retired friends who are sailing from the UK to the Caribbean. They departed last summer, got to Portugal and rested their until after Christmas, flying home to see grandkids over Christmas. They're now sailing to the Caribbean and it will take them about 6 weeks, they've just passed Ascension Island which is viewed as last point to stop before continuing to cross the Atlantic and are now "past the point of no return". Their destination is now closer than Europe is.

That doesn't mean they don't need to worry. Just because they won't be returning to their starting point, doesn't mean they needn't take precautions and act safely while they're in the waters they're in. Actually it makes it more important to do so.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandBlade

Like many, many things in life that doesn't mean what you think it means.

I've got retired friends who are sailing from the UK to the Caribbean. They departed last summer, got to Portugal and rested their until after Christmas, flying home to see grandkids over Christmas. They're now sailing to the Caribbean and it will take them about 6 weeks, they've just passed Ascension Island which is viewed as last point to stop before continuing to cross the Atlantic and are now "past the point of no return". Their destination is now closer than Europe is.

That doesn't mean they don't need to worry. Just because they won't be returning to their starting point, doesn't mean they needn't take precautions and act safely while they're in the waters they're in. Actually it makes it more important to do so.

---

I'm commenting on the fear mongering and the false 'rush to action' chicken little's that keep pushing the "point of no return" date out over and over again. Either they were wrong about the point of no return and therefore their other statements should be questioned... or they were right and let's get on with adapting. But under no circumstances should we still be blindly believing their 'humanity is doomed if we don't do x by this date' baloney.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lewkowski

I'm commenting on the fear mongering and the false 'rush to action' chicken little's that keep pushing the "point of no return" date out over and over again. Either they were wrong about the point of no return and therefore their other statements should be questioned... or they were right and let's get on with adapting. But under no circumstances should we still be blindly believing their 'humanity is doomed if we don't do x by this date' baloney.

---

So, you're saying that we passed the point of no return and thus shouldn't do anything to at least mitigate the damage?

Of course this will go right over your head: But this is not a binary issue.

Let me try to put it into an analogy you may understand (though I'm confident this will go straight over your head):

You're told that if you continue this dietary habit that you may become diabetic. You don't stop and promptly become diabetic. But instead of then changing your ways you simply continue and do nothing about it because there's no rush. Which, in case of diabetes, usually leads to either death or amputations.

But sure, no rush. Getting a leg lopped off is such a great thing!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Khendraja'aro

So, you're saying that we passed the point of no return and thus shouldn't do anything to at least mitigate the damage?

Of course this will go right over your head: But this is not a binary issue.

Let me try to put it into an analogy you may understand (though I'm confident this will go straight over your head):

You're told that if you continue this dietary habit that you may become diabetic. You don't stop and promptly become diabetic. But instead of then changing your ways you simply continue and do nothing about it because there's no rush. Which, in case of diabetes, usually leads to either death or amputations.

But sure, no rush. Getting a leg lopped off is such a great thing!

---

You must be really bored to waste time responding to the village idiot.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Khendraja'aro

So, you're saying that we passed the point of no return and thus shouldn't do anything to at least mitigate the damage?

Of course this will go right over your head: But this is not a binary issue.

Let me try to put it into an analogy you may understand (though I'm confident this will go straight over your head):

You're told that if you continue this dietary habit that you may become diabetic. You don't stop and promptly become diabetic. But instead of then changing your ways you simply continue and do nothing about it because there's no rush. Which, in case of diabetes, usually leads to either death or amputations.

But sure, no rush. Getting a leg lopped off is such a great thing!

---

Only the issue is the patient is diabetic yet despite the fact being told they would be. The issue has always been that people scream crisis in order to act with artificial dates to try to spur action, all the while continually losing their credibility.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lewkowski

Only the issue is the patient is diabetic yet despite the fact being told they would be. The issue has always been that people scream crisis in order to act with artificial dates to try to spur action, all the while continually losing their credibility.

---

I am bored so I'll reply to the village idiot. :haha:

Lewk, the first Earth Day was in 1970. Just a bunch of hippie tree hugging anti-establishment types, dismissed for decades, with no real science to back up their claims. The only science that mattered came from the fossil fuel industry: no need to worry about acid rain, CFCs, the ozone, or lead in gasoline. All that greenhouse gas effect was just junk science from vegetarians complaining about cows farting methane, or something. Drill baby drill, right? :rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lewkowski

Only the issue is the patient is diabetic yet despite the fact being told they would be. The issue has always been that people scream crisis in order to act with artificial dates to try to spur action, all the while continually losing their credibility.

---

The patient is diabetic. Climate change isn't just possible it is already happening.

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/...-clapback.html

Twitter Link

Great. Declaring an emergency over a non-emergency.

That will go over well. Maybe this will finally wake up the GOP to the fact that they have a Mussolini-wannabe as president? Because if they acquiesce now what will hinder a future Democratic president from declaring an emergency over, say, another mass-shooting?

Not that I expect them to be that non-hypocritical in such a case or so self-reflecting ("How did we end up here? Could it be my own actions which contributed to this? ... ... naw!")

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Khendraja'aro

Great. Declaring an emergency over a non-emergency.

That will go over well. Maybe this will finally wake up the GOP to the fact that they have a Mussolini-wannabe as president? Because if they acquiesce now what will hinder a future Democratic president from declaring an emergency over, say, another mass-shooting?

Not that I expect them to be that non-hypocritical in such a case or so self-reflecting ("How did we end up here? Could it be my own actions which contributed to this? ... ... naw!")

---

To be fair we regularly declare national emergencies when there is no emergency.

https://www.federalregister.gov/docu...ict-in-somalia

Not that I'm opposed to this particular order but it certainly doesn't seem like an emergency situation.

Presidents don't steal billions from the military in the process. I'm sure you won't complain when the Dems do the same to fund a climate change program.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lewkowski

To be fair we regularly declare national emergencies when there is no emergency.

https://www.federalregister.gov/docu...ict-in-somalia

Not that I'm opposed to this particular order but it certainly doesn't seem like an emergency situation.

---

And how much money did this cost the tax payer? Whatever you say, I'm pretty certain it will be "less than five billion US dollars".

Also, that was a "this stops now" declaration. The "wall emergency"? Yeah. 3 to 5 years.

Not to mention that your precious president himself stated: "I did not need to do this."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loki

Presidents don't steal billions from the military in the process. I'm sure you won't complain when the Dems do the same to fund a climate change program.

---

Gun control. With a weakened NRA and GOP thanks to their Russian connections if this national emergency stands gun control is going to be a major target of the next dem president.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Khendraja'aro

And how much money did this cost the tax payer? Whatever you say, I'm pretty certain it will be "less than five billion US dollars".

Also, that was a "this stops now" declaration. The "wall emergency"? Yeah. 3 to 5 years.

Not to mention that your precious president himself stated: "I did not need to do this."

---

Your beef was that it wasn't a national emergency. I showed how we use the term national emergency for a lot of non-national emergency situations. The cost doesn't even matter in the discussion on if it was proper to try to fund it via national emergency declaration. I have a feeling you would be opposed to the wall even if it got funding via congressional action.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer

Gun control. With a weakened NRA and GOP thanks to their Russian connections if this national emergency stands gun control is going to be a major target of the next dem president.

---

That would be equivalent to trying to use a national emergency to restrict free speech. The right to speak, the right to criticize government is no more important than the right to bear arms. The SCOTUS will quickly quash that nonsense.

That's quite a cafeteria constitutionalist take.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lewkowski

Your beef was that it wasn't a national emergency. I showed how we use the term national emergency for a lot of non-national emergency situations.

---

But not, typically, to circumvent Congress after being rebuffed by legislators several times.

Quote:

---

The cost doesn't even matter in the discussion on if it was proper to try to fund it via national emergency declaration.

---

It does, however, matter in the discussion of how great the asshattery is. If you declare a national emergency and waste $5 that's a lot better than wasting $5 billion.

Quote:

---

I have a feeling you would be opposed to the wall even if it got funding via congressional action.

---

It is of course possible to oppose something for more than one reason.