Trump has officially entered the psychotic emperor phase.

[Hodad]

On 5/21/2025 at 3:28 PM, herbie said:

This is a posting of a sane man? More like a post from an absolute a$$hole going off the deep end.

Fairly sure this is fake, but you'll forgive me a moment's hesitation on the matter as Trump is objectively stupid and morally repugnant. 

[BeaverFever]

The shameless private sale of access to president continues unabated  Now with more foreigners!  Orgy of corruption indeed 

 

Top $TRUMP holders head to crypto dinner with president that Democrats call ‘orgy of corruption’

 

KEY POINTS

• The $TRUMP token contest drew $148 million in global purchases, with top-ranked wallets gaining direct access to the president.
• Most top wallets appear to be linked to offshore exchanges, and blockchain data suggests many high-value holders are likely not U.S. citizens.

 

….The $TRUMP coin, which has no attached asset or underlying value, was launched just ahead of the president’s inauguration in January and has drawn heavy scrutiny from Democratic lawmakers who say Trump is profiting from his position of power.

The dinner was announced in April and promised to reward the top 220 token owners with “the most exclusive invitation in the world.” The top 25 finishers were also told they would get a private reception with the president, as well as a “special VIP tour.” The coin jumped 50% after the dinner announcement.

Just now, BeaverFever said:

The shameless private sale of access to president continues unabated  Now with more foreigners!  Orgy of corruption indeed 

 

 

Top $TRUMP holders head to crypto dinner with president that Democrats call ‘orgy of corruption’

 

KEY POINTS

• The $TRUMP token contest drew $148 million in global purchases, with top-ranked wallets gaining direct access to the president.
• Most top wallets appear to be linked to offshore exchanges, and blockchain data suggests many high-value holders are likely not U.S. citizens.

 

 

….The $TRUMP coin, which has no attached asset or underlying value, was launched just ahead of the president’s inauguration in January and has drawn heavy scrutiny from Democratic lawmakers who say Trump is profiting from his position of power.

The dinner was announced in April and promised to reward the top 220 token owners with “the most exclusive invitation in the world.” The top 25 finishers were also told they would get a private reception with the president, as well as a “special VIP tour.” The coin jumped 50% after the dinner announcement.

What do you mean no attached asset?  The corrupt president is the attached asset. 

[herbie]

Watch his Quislings rally to claim it's not corruption and perfectly okay to use his Presidency to profit personally.

[CdnFox]

9 minutes ago, herbie said:

Watch his Quislings rally to claim it's not corruption and perfectly okay to use his Presidency to profit personally.

Clinton did and so did Biden. I don't recall you being outrageously outraged at that point  

[BeaverFever]

6 hours ago, CdnFox said:

Clinton did and so did Biden. I don't recall you being outrageously outraged at that point  

No they didn’t. Rewarding political donors, which is bad enough, is completely different. This is just selling access for his own private profit not a donation to his campaign…buying Trump crypto isn’t a legit political donation

[CdnFox]

48 minutes ago, BeaverFever said:

No they didn’t. Rewarding political donors, which is bad enough, is completely different. This is just selling access for his own private profit not a donation to his campaign…buying Trump crypto isn’t a legit political donation

Well they both did that too.  Clinton refused to agree to weapons sales under obama until those people just happened to make a huge donation to the charity the clintons control and bill draws pay from  Then magically... approval! 

And we know biden's kid was selling influence.  The evidence is pretty strong. 

And to be honest, i don't really see the difference you claim between political donations and this. Personal gain is personal gain. 

Now i happen to think all THREE examples are in the wrong. I think what trump is doing is wrong i think what the clinton's and bidens did is wrong.   But the thing is if you're going to let the first two get away with it without a murmur it's really hard at this point to say trump shouldn't be doing  that.  Either we all decide that kind of thing is wrong and treat it as such, OR we accept that anyone in power is going to do it, and that's precisely what the people in power will do as well

I mean why on earth would you expect someone to watch the dems do it scott free and then NOT do it when they get into power?

Fair for one fair for all, firm for one firm for all.  That's just the way it works. 

[BeaverFever]

21 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Clinton refused to agree to weapons sales under obama until those people just happened to make a huge donation to the charity the clintons control and bill draws pay from  Then magically... approval! 

Sorry thats just another unproven Republican allegation bases on zero evidence m, which I think even you have embellished further. There’s no evidence that Hillary first “refused” or was directly involved in any way. The only ACTUAL facts are that 1) countries who have been  purchasing weapons from the USA LONG BEFORE Obama and Hillary continued to do so during their time and 2) they also made donations to the Clinton foundation. 

As for Biden, again more unproven claims we don’t need to go down that road again  

Second of all, making a charitable donation to registered charity that is open to public scrutiny where there’s no clear direct benefit to the Clintons is definitely different than openly and brazenly giving cash directly to Trump through these crypto and private club schemes and clearly and openly getting special access to POTUS as a reward.  Unlike your claims about Clinton and Biden it’s not an unproven rumour that that Trump is doing it, he’s doing it in the open for everyone to see 

Edited yesterday at 03:20 AM by BeaverFever

[CdnFox]

Just now, BeaverFever said:

Sorry thats just another unproven Republican allegation bases on zero evidence  

That's not true. In fact we know that it did happen absolutely. There's no rumor about it, the facts are clear and the timelines are public record.

There is no contesting that Hillary oversaw the arms deals. That is a matter of record. 

There is no contesting the donations from the saudis.  That is a matter of record. 

There is no disputing that they applied, they were not granted the weapons sale and it dragged a bit, they donated and the approval came through. That time line is public record. 

What CAN"T be proven beyond a reasonable doubt is that this is the reason the sale went through. They cant' PROVE in a court of law a crime was committed. 

But the evidence EASILY passes the burden of proof for 'clear and convincing" or "balance of probabilities' (preponderance of the evidence in the states).  These are lower civil evidence levels and far more suitable for the discussion. 

Yet you utterly dismiss even the possibility. 

Same with biden. While the evidence does not yet reach teh 'beyond reasonable doubt' stage there's more than enough for the lesser legal proofs. 

Yet even tho trump has been convicted of no crime in this and we cannot PROVE that attending these events will produce ANY undue influence (there's no criminal level evidence they will),  you're prepared to condemn it. 

 

Which makes you a lying hypocrite who's willing to completely ignore the truth to promote his echo chamber. What he's doing is no different. And he's innocent if you use the same burden of proof for all, and they're ALL guilty if you use the same burden of proof for all that allows for that conclusion. 

So why on earth would anyone pay attention to you? You can't even be a tiny bit honest about it, and you're entirely fine with the corruption as long as people you like do it. 

 

[gatomontes99]

6 hours ago, CdnFox said:

That's not true. In fact we know that it did happen absolutely. There's no rumor about it, the facts are clear and the timelines are public record.

There is no contesting that Hillary oversaw the arms deals. That is a matter of record. 

There is no contesting the donations from the saudis.  That is a matter of record. 

There is no disputing that they applied, they were not granted the weapons sale and it dragged a bit, they donated and the approval came through. That time line is public record. 

What CAN"T be proven beyond a reasonable doubt is that this is the reason the sale went through. They cant' PROVE in a court of law a crime was committed. 

But the evidence EASILY passes the burden of proof for 'clear and convincing" or "balance of probabilities' (preponderance of the evidence in the states).  These are lower civil evidence levels and far more suitable for the discussion. 

Yet you utterly dismiss even the possibility. 

Same with biden. While the evidence does not yet reach teh 'beyond reasonable doubt' stage there's more than enough for the lesser legal proofs. 

Yet even tho trump has been convicted of no crime in this and we cannot PROVE that attending these events will produce ANY undue influence (there's no criminal level evidence they will),  you're prepared to condemn it. 

 

Which makes you a lying hypocrite who's willing to completely ignore the truth to promote his echo chamber. What he's doing is no different. And he's innocent if you use the same burden of proof for all, and they're ALL guilty if you use the same burden of proof for all that allows for that conclusion. 

So why on earth would anyone pay attention to you? You can't even be a tiny bit honest about it, and you're entirely fine with the corruption as long as people you like do it. 

 

Reality: enemy of the left since 1995

[Nationalist]

23 hours ago, Hodad said:

Fairly sure this is fake, but you'll forgive me a moment's hesitation on the matter as Trump is objectively stupid and morally repugnant. 

"I HATE TRUMP! NO MATTER HOW GOOD THE RESULTS ARE...I HATE HIM I HATE HIM I HATE HIM!"

You Libbies are childish little twits.

[robosmith]

3 hours ago, Nationalist said:

"I HATE TRUMP! NO MATTER HOW GOOD THE RESULTS ARE...I HATE HIM I HATE HIM I HATE HIM!"

You Libbies are childish little twits.

Childish ^twit quotes something that ONLY SHE SAID. LMAO

[Hodad]

10 hours ago, Nationalist said:

"I HATE TRUMP! NO MATTER HOW GOOD THE RESULTS ARE...I HATE HIM I HATE HIM I HATE HIM!"

You Libbies are childish little twits.

We've yet to have any noteworthy good results. 

We've got an economy he's quickly tipping into recession, a constitutional crisis, a government waging war on journalism, science and education, an insane tariff policy and the volatile market to match. There's pretty much nothing the orange buffoon can't turn to shit in just 100 days.

[User]

2 hours ago, Hodad said:

We've yet to have any noteworthy good results. 

We've got an economy he's quickly tipping into recession, a constitutional crisis, a government waging war on journalism, science and education, an insane tariff policy and the volatile market to match. There's pretty much nothing the orange buffoon can't turn to shit in just 100 days.

The border is the best its ever been for security in keeping illegal immigrants from crossing!

 

[BeaverFever]

On 5/23/2025 at 11:28 PM, CdnFox said:

That's not true. In fact we know that it did happen absolutely. There's no rumor about it, the facts are clear and the timelines are public record.

There is no contesting that Hillary oversaw the arms deals. That is a matter of record. 

There is no contesting the donations from the saudis.  That is a matter of record. 

There is no disputing that they applied, they were not granted the weapons sale and it dragged a bit, they donated and the approval came through. That time line is public record. 

What CAN"T be proven beyond a reasonable doubt is that this is the reason the sale went through. They cant' PROVE in a court of law a crime was committed. 

But the evidence EASILY passes the burden of proof for 'clear and convincing" or "balance of probabilities' (preponderance of the evidence in the states).  These are lower civil evidence levels and far more suitable for the discussion. 

Yet you utterly dismiss even the possibility. 

Same with biden. While the evidence does not yet reach teh 'beyond reasonable doubt' stage there's more than enough for the lesser legal proofs. 

Yet even tho trump has been convicted of no crime in this and we cannot PROVE that attending these events will produce ANY undue influence (there's no criminal level evidence they will),  you're prepared to condemn it. 

 

Which makes you a lying hypocrite who's willing to completely ignore the truth to promote his echo chamber. What he's doing is no different. And he's innocent if you use the same burden of proof for all, and they're ALL guilty if you use the same burden of proof for all that allows for that conclusion. 

So why on earth would anyone pay attention to you? You can't even be a tiny bit honest about it, and you're entirely fine with the corruption as long as people you like do it. 

 

No, you don’t know where the facts end 
and Republican innuendo and baseless allegations begin.   I’ll say it again there’s NO EVIDENCE that Hillary personally interfered to hold up the deal or otherwise inappropriately interfered.  None.  There is no evidence that any of the deals were even mysteriously delayed or otherwise held up prior to a donation. None. 
 

Look these countries: Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States have been reliant on US military equipment and have been a vital US interest for DECADES.  These arms deals are part of the US long term global strategy that spans multiple presidents and governments going back to the 1950s. They don’t just happen or not happen randomly on the whim of a single public servant who wants to take a little bribe 

Also Hillary’s State department is just one of many departments that major arms deals have to go through, it’s not like it’s her personal pet project. 

Sorry the claim is bullshit it come from a Republican propagandist’s book and he doesn’t offer any evidence because the book is written just to preach to the converted. 

Also I love how when it’s a democrat being accused you suddenly claim that flimsy circumstantial evidence and unsubstantiated rumours are compelling evidence. And yet when Republicans are accused of wrongdoing suddenly your standard of evidence so high as to become impossible. 

And as I already said  donations to someone’s charity doesn’t benefit them directly so even if these baseless accusations were true it wouldn’t at all be the same as Trump’s rackets that pay him directly  

Trump is selling private audience with the president for personal profit to FOREIGNERS . He’s accepting extravagant gifts from foreign governments. Remember you insisted that Trudeau’s ONE plane ride in a lifelong family friend’s plane was bribery so how can you say gifting Trump a half billion dollar “palace in the sky” isn’t?  YOU ARE THE HYPOCRITE 

Lastly you claim that it’s ok for Trump to accept bribes as long as he doesn’t actually give anything in return is ridiculous. It’s called conflict of interest   Trump has launched policies related to crypto including creating a federal crypto reserve and of course he and the US government and his private business have all sorts of ongoing dealings with the Qataris   And unlike tour claims about Hillary Trump is not one of a dozen people involved in these deals he is running the show. 

On 5/24/2025 at 5:31 AM, gatomontes99 said:

Reality: enemy of the left since 1995

Lmao you wouldn’t know reality if it bit you on the ass, election denier. 
 

EDIT:  it’s also hilarious that you try to suggest that inappropriate dealings with the Saudis originated under Obama when the Bush family (father and son) was LOUSY with Saudi money for years….again this was highlighted in Michael Moore’s Fahrenheit 9/11:

 

 

 

Edited 4 hours ago by BeaverFever

[gatomontes99]

5 hours ago, BeaverFever said:

Lmao you wouldn’t know reality if it bit you on the ass, election denier. 

I've never denied an election happened.

[BeaverFever]

1 hour ago, gatomontes99 said:

I've never denied an election happened.

You deny the results when your side doesn’t win. 

[gatomontes99]

36 minutes ago, BeaverFever said:

You deny the results when your side doesn’t win. 

Oh, we do? Do we?

You guys made up Russia collusion and then called Trump illegitimate. What you are doing is just demonization for distraction. You are the side that is cheating and then trying to blame the other side for pointing it out.

 

[BeaverFever]

22 minutes ago, gatomontes99 said:

Oh, we do? Do we?

You guys made up Russia collusion and then called Trump illegitimate. What you are doing is just demonization for distraction. You are the side that is cheating and then trying to blame the other side for pointing it out.

 

Hilary conceded on the night of the election, unlike Trump. Trump attempted a number of fraudulent schemes to change the result of the election, unlike Hillary. 

Edited 3 hours ago by BeaverFever

[gatomontes99]

2 minutes ago, BeaverFever said:

Hilary conceded on the night of the election, unlike Trump. Trump attempted a number of fraudulent schemes to change the result of the election, unlike Hillary. 

Trump did the exact same legal maneuver as JFK.

[BeaverFever]

31 minutes ago, gatomontes99 said:

Trump did the exact same legal maneuver as JFK.

LMAO WTF are you talking about!

 

Can you point me to where JFK

- forged fraudulent electoral certificates?

- called state election officials and pressured them to falsify their vote counts?

- filed dozens of ridiculously baseless sham lawsuits simply to delay and delegitimize the election?

- pressured the vice president and members of congress to refuse to certify the election results and thereby trigger a constitutional crisis?

- raised a mob of supporters to attack the Capitol on certification day in order to prevent certification and trigger a constitutional crisis?

 

Edited 2 hours ago by BeaverFever

[gatomontes99]

20 minutes ago, BeaverFever said:

- forged fraudulent electoral certificates?

Never happened.

20 minutes ago, BeaverFever said:

- called state election officials and pressured them to falsify their vote counts?

Never happened.

20 minutes ago, BeaverFever said:

- filed dozens of ridiculously baseless sham lawsuits simply to delay and delegitimize the election?

Legal maneuvers aren't fraud.

20 minutes ago, BeaverFever said:

- pressured the vice president members of congress to refuse to certify the election results and thereby trigger a constitutional crisis?

It isn't a constitutional crisis to challenge EC results. In fact, it's perfectly constitutional. Democrats did it, in droves, in 2016.

20 minutes ago, BeaverFever said:

- raised a mob of supporters to attack the Capitol on certification day in order to prevent certification and trigger a constitutional crisis?

Yep. Calling on people to march peacefully and patrioticly was code for take over the country while wearing costums and using no weapons.

The legal maneuvers that Trump used were very similar to JFK in Hawaii in 1960. JFK sent "fraudlent" (otherwise known as alternate) electors. And it worked.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1960_United_States_presidential_election_in_Hawaii

But you ran away from the fact that you are attempting to discredit me rather than addressing the issue. That's rule #2 of the lefty loon rules for debating. Apparently you have nothing.

Edited 2 hours ago by gatomontes99

[BeaverFever]

2 hours ago, gatomontes99 said:

2 hours ago, BeaverFever said:

 

Never happened

LMAO you are so out of touch. It is an objective fact of history that congress received forged electoral certificates for several states indicting a Trump rather than Biden win and that these certificates were created by Republican operatives in those states not the state officials responsible for certifying their election count  

 

2 hours ago, gatomontes99 said:

Never happened.

Absolutely happened. Again this is an objective fact of history, such as his infamous call to Georgian official Raffensburger. “ All I need is 11,780 votes, just say you found 11,780 votes” and suggesting anyone who doesn’t is going to be prosecuted for election fraud. 
 

2 hours ago, gatomontes99 said:

Legal maneuvers aren't fraud.

The sham lawsuits clearly had absolutely no merit in fact or legal argument, did not meet even the basic legal standard for bringing forward to a court of law and several lawyers involved were eventually sanctioned for misconduct as a result, some losing their license. 
 

2 hours ago, gatomontes99 said:

It isn't a constitutional crisis to challenge EC results. In fact, it's perfectly constitutional. Democrats did it, in droves, in 2016.

1) Democts did nothing of the sort in 2016

2) the constitution requires that congress certify the election on January 6, period. There is no provision under the constitution to do it on any other date.  By attempting to prevent certification on Jan 6, an unprecedented constitutional crisis with no clear resolution would have occurred if Republicans had been successful in preventing certification on Jan 6, which was their goal  in order to proclaim the Biden win null and void and that Trump must remain office indefinitely until some sort of resolution could be found. 
 

2 hours ago, gatomontes99 said:

Yep. Calling on people to march peacefully and patrioticly was code for take over the country while wearing costums and using no weapons.

There’s a reason the rally was held on Jan 6 near the Capitol and not some other date or other location, that’s not coincidence   In fact rhetoric from Trump and the other supporters during and in the leaduup to the rally was notably violent ; 

”you got to go to the streets and be as violent as Antifa.””

“we’re coming for you and we’re going to have a good time doing it!”

“let’s have trial by combat.”

“We fight like Hell and if you don’t fight like Hell, you’re not going to have a country anymore.”

Prior to Jan 6 Trump refused multiple recommendations from his own staff to use the word “peaceful” in any of his tweets and statements about the upcoming rally as staff were concerned that it could become violent  

Trump said the word “peacefully” ONCE in his speech which was written by his writers  But the speech said the word “fight” more than 20 times and he ad-libbed it in his remarks 18 more times 

Even after Trump learned that hos minions had breached the Capitol rather than de-escalate he continued to tweet incendiary comments about how their country had been stolen and how Mile Pence had betrayed them and America  
 

Even if we give Trump credit he doesn’t deserve and assume that he didn’t intend for a mob of his brainwashed zealots to attack the Capitol, it was definitely foreseeable and a massive act of negligence and incompetence on his part 

 

Heres a little thought exercise you can do in the future:  rather than pretend every egregious thing Trump does is totally normal and a nothingburger, try to imagine how you would react if Hillary, Obama or Biden had doe it instead. I highly doubt that if it was Biden and his supporters who had been committing those acts you would be ok with it. 

Edited 27 minutes ago by BeaverFever

[gatomontes99]

52 minutes ago, BeaverFever said:

LMAO you are so out of touch. It is an objective fact of history that congress received forged electoral certificates for several states indicting a Trump rather than Biden win and that these certificates were created by Republican operatives in those states not the state officials responsible for certifying their election count  

You are delusional. Calling it fraudulent doesn't make it fraudulent. Alternate electors have been used in the past. Congress does not have to accept them. But they can have a debate.

52 minutes ago, BeaverFever said:

1) Democts did nothing of the sort in 2016

"That's why people have some level of dismay today on the vote ... about the Electoral College," Pelosi said at a news conference. "How much is known about the foreign disruption of our election?"

Yes it is:

And you try to say I'm out of touch?

 

52 minutes ago, BeaverFever said:

2) the constitution requires that congress certify the election on January 6, period.

Really? Do you want to prove that? And you think I'm the one out of touch?

 

52 minutes ago, BeaverFever said:

”you got to go to the streets and be as violent as Antifa.””

First, Trump didn't say that, Gohmert did. Second, that quote (in context) was an attack on the court for the ruling that removed the last legal attempt at challenging the election. It wasn't a call to violence. And you call me out of touch with reality?

https://www.forbes.com/sites/andrewsolender/2021/01/02/gop-rep-gohmert-says-violence-is-only-recourse-after-election-lawsuit-dismissal/

52 minutes ago, BeaverFever said:

we’re coming for you and we’re going to have a good time doing it!

Yahoo, Google and Duck Duck Go have no such quote in any place other than songs.

52 minutes ago, BeaverFever said:

let’s have trial by combat.

Again, that was not Trump, that was Guiliani and he was talking about the tough nature of the trials. And you say I'm out of touch with reality?

 

 

52 minutes ago, BeaverFever said:

We fight like Hell and if you don’t fight like Hell, you’re not going to have a country anymore.

Hey, you finally found one by Trump talking about legal battles and elections. Do you think can find one where he says to take the government without weapons while wearing costumes and cheeky shirts?

Edited 1 hour ago by gatomontes99

[User]

1 hour ago, BeaverFever said:

LMAO you are so out of touch. It is an objective fact of history that congress received forged electoral certificates for several states indicting a Trump rather than Biden win and that these certificates were created by Republican operatives in those states not the state officials responsible for certifying their election count  

Sigh... you just keep regurgitating this crap after it has already been refuting in other threads you have long run away from. 

Those were alternate electors IF the states votes had been lawfully rejected, as most of the other states that submitted such paperwork clearly indicated on theirs. 

1 hour ago, BeaverFever said:

Absolutely happened. Again this is an objective fact of history, such as his infamous call to Georgian official Raffensburger. “ All I need is 11,780 votes, just say you found 11,780 votes” and suggesting anyone who doesn’t is going to be prosecuted for election fraud. 

This is an absolute lie. You put quotes around something that was not said. Trump did not instruct him to "just say you found 11,780 votes"

You are not being honest at all. 

1 hour ago, BeaverFever said:

Trump said the word “peacefully” ONCE in his speech which was written by his writers  But the speech said the word “fight” more than 20 times and he ad-libbed it in his remarks 18 more times 

Yes, Trump literally told them to go march peacefully and used the word "fight" figuratively like almost anyone does. 

You want to ignore the literal direction to go march in peace.