Hodad

Playing stupid? Disagree, but I suppose it's nice to have the choice to pretend. You just can't help yourself. The FBI didn't lie about any laptop. The vaccines were safe and effective. The only election cheating in 2016 was the Russian collusion of the Trump campaign. And on and on you go. As usual, you've packed far too many lies and conspiracy theories into your Gish gallop to be worth addressing. Enjoy your circle jerk. Try not to get it in your eyes.

It's not even circumstantial. The timeline is nonsense with VP Biden's trip announced well before any phone call to address issues that had been brewing for years and a hot topic for months. The "phone call" is hypothetical. Shokin's firing was the culmination of an international outcry and literal protests because he was facilitating corruption instead of fighting it. Joe Biden’s trip to Ukraine was announced in mid-November. And except that, in mid-September, the American ambassador to Ukraine elevated concerns about Shokin’s reliability in the fight against corruption — the reason Joe Biden offered for demanding that Shokin be fired. “We need some help,” Jordan claims that Burisma executives said to Archer and Hunter Biden, referring both to Shokin and a British probe of the company. So “they make a phone call to D.C., Mr. Archer said. I don’t know who they call, but they call D.C. And five days later, Dec. 9, 2015, Joe Biden is in Ukraine and he gives a speech starting the pressure on the prosecutor in Ukraine.” Republicans go on Fox and tell lies. West, easily manipulated, repeats them here as if they are fact. Rinse and repeat.

I think you're lying again. Provide evidence that shows Chutkan did any work for Burisma or Biden.

Good thing you are here to quote some rando's Twitter, er... X, posts and make up little plays. Meanwhile the adults in the room are dealing with facts. 1. Devon Archer said exactly the opposite of what you heard on Fox and are parroting here. He said that his understanding was that Burisma had control of Shokin and that it was a BAD thing for the company that he was fired. You can read the transcript. He also says Joe Biden never talked business, wasn't involved. "So -- yes. I was -- the narrative that was spun to me, quite frankly, just to be -- and I remember this because, obviously, it's -- the narrative that was spun to me was that Shokin was under control and that whoever the next person that was brought in was -- you know, the fact that he was -- this is the total, this is the narrative spun to me, that Shokin being fired was a -- was not good, because he was like under control as relates to Mykola." 2. Shokin had not been investigating Burisma and Biden (because, see above).. The National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine (NABU) said an investigation was ongoing into permits granted by officials at the Ministry of Ecology for the use of natural resources to a string of companies managed by Burisma. But it said the period under investigation was 2010-2012, and noted that this was before the company hired Hunter Biden. “Changes to the board of Burisma Limited, which are currently the object of international attention, took place only in May 2014, and therefore are not and never were the subject of (the anti-corruption bureau’s) investigation,” the bureau’s statement said."

What a tidy lie. Smells like a Tucker special, meant to imply that Shokin was fired because he was investigating Burisma. But he wasn't, and hadn't been for years. In fact, the US and it's allies wanted Shokin fired because he wasn't investigating much of anything.

Yeah, it's pretty well established that, indeed, you don't know what communists do. A coup is not trivial or frivolous. He tried to end the republic. That was a bridge too far for even his otherwise lapdog VP. There isn't even a question that he tried to illegally seize power, and you can't even bring yourself to acknowledge the fact, let alone condemn it. I can't imagine what it must be like till be so worshipfully devoted to a politician. Gross.

Apparently I'm going to be a minority opinion, but I think hair and makeup are legit campaign expenses if Melania is making public appearances for the campaign. That seems fair. Whether the costs are reasonable depends on how much service and how the service is billed. An open question. I haven't researched.

Nah, there's a decent chance Trump will go away for a stretch.

Nice to see Eastman obliquely references as a conspirator. Glad he didn't get the pardon he anticipated needing. I hope justice finds him.

No, that's certainly not what I said. They are more similar than you'd like to admit, but luckily we don't have a binary choice between two shitty options. We can simply embrace rationality and fairness while prioritizing individual liberty. The authors of the constitution could have tied our laws to religious doctrine, but thankfully they did the opposite.

Great for you that Trump's campaign messages and his track record align with your personal views, but your views are a minority perspective in this country. That was clear in the approval numbers. It was clear in the polling data. And it was clear when the voters turned out and reaffirmed that message. The majority of people simply disagree with you. It's not a conspiracy. Get over yourself.

They didn't "skip" anything. It's simply the contrast between low turnout and high. Trump v Clinton didn't motivate high turnout. They were two uninspiring candidates. But 2020 became an existential crisis. People showed up. You're truly ridiculous, clinging steadfastly to denial of the outcome when there is no reason and no evidence to support your claims. And worse, the people pumping the claims are admitted liars and losers in court. Have some self respect.

Yes, "numbnuts." I too, am talking about the total number of votes. Do you even realize that you provided to me the link I already provided to you? And no, there is no "problem" with the numbers. Voter turnout was almost a full 10% higher than the previous election. Trump was not a popular president. He was a corrupt criminal, a divisive force and an existential threat to the country. People turned out to give him the boot. You seem surprised that he lost, like it's somehow inconceivable, but his approval ratings were awful and he trailed significantly in the polls. The surprise would have been if he were reelected.

Why do I have to do that? This is not secret info. The population grows. Clinton 1 < Clinton 2 < GWB 1 < GWB 2 < Obama 1 >Obama 2 >Trump < Biden In the last 30 years, the only winners who have gotten fewer votes than the previous winner is Obama getting fewer votes in his second win, and Trump getting even fewer votes than that.

Set your magic feelings aside and apply some common sense and perspective. It's typical that each president elected gets more vote than the previous winners--more rule than exception. And having an historically awful and divisive incumbent in Trump did wonders to boost turnout. He wasn't just rejected by the average voter, he was rejected by people who would have otherwise stayed home or not bothered to get a mail in ballot. WTF are you even talking about? Rudy WAS the cheat and liar. It's been obvious for ages, but at this point he's admitted it, just like the Kraken lady. It's bizarre that you will believe them when they tell you lies, but won't believe them when they confess to the lies.

It's not a matter of homework. This wasn't an accident. They set out to sell lies about a stolen election in an attempt to steal the election. He didn't misstate facts because they were poorly researched. He lied to you because he knew you would believe without research. And there are still people on this form complaining that the 2020 election will always be tainted! -- Well, yeah, it will, just not in the way Trumpers imagine.

My problem with this story is the use of the word "quickly." Jeebus, that felt like a lifetime. Stroke or bleed or something shut down the brain there. I hope he's okay.

After an unbroken string of nonsense posts, I don't suppose I have any reason to expect that you're capable of clever banter. But still, ^^ that post is pretty sad.

Sure, if you just "report" what someone else has said or add a question mark at the end, then you're magically relieved of any and all personal responsibility for spreading dangerous misinformation. Classic! Is Bat Boy is alive and well? Or is he psychologically damaged by--what some describe as--Mako's unwanted touching of his Batcave? We simply can't know that Mako wasn't trying to harvest his Batdrenochrome!

Oh, you want to go on record claiming that, in your view, robbery does no harm? No, because that would be a stupid claim? Okay, so then it obviously doesn't fall under the description of freedom that I, or the founding fathers, describe. So why don't you try again with something that better resembles a reasoned critique.

Look, it's pretty clear that you don't have any knowledge or understanding of political philosophy. That's probably something worth exploring before you try to define freedom. Freedom does, in fact, mean that you get to do whatever you want. And within the context of a formal society in which liberty is negotiated and traded for other benefits, freedom means doing whatever you like as long as it's not harming others. The prevention of harm is the function of the laws. Laws are passed to prevent one person's freedom from impinging upon another person's freedom. Colloquially, my right to swing my arms around ends where doing so would impact your body. Your freedom not to be struck supercedes my right to do whatever I want. The fact that you think red ties are ugly is not grounds to limit my freedom to wear a red tie by passing laws to prohibit it. It doesn't harm you, or anyone else. There is no justification. You may think that gay marriage is "yucky" but, like heterosexual marriage, there is no harm or risk to anyone outside of the consenting couple. Therefore there is no justification to make it illegal This is a pretty simple proposition. If you can't demonstrate harm (you can't) then you are taking away or limiting someone else's rights simply because of your arbitrary preferences. That's inherently antagonistic toward freedom. You favor religious oppression and forced conformity over liberty. That's just the facts as they stand, and it couldn't be more plain.

Living with "freedom loving Christians" would be fine. That's just not who you are. You do not love freedom. You would prefer to oppress non-harm liberties and force people to live according to your interpretation of some ancient texts.

?

Actually, that's exactly parallel to what Sharia is: laws based on the religious interpretations of those in power rather than upon a foundation of reasoned freedom. Of course, that's insanity. Depending who is in power at any given moment it may or may not be against the law to eat bacon. You want a county, it's just not America as it was founded and exists today.

Ah, theocracy. There we have it. You want laws based on your own religious interpretations. So you can stop pretending you're into freedom and the constitution and stuff.