FartyBlartFast wrote: » Trump was under investigation for rao9jng a 13 year old child in 2016, and it didn't turn his voters off though. And to be honest, anyone claiming to be one the fence in the wake of child concentration camps is in my opinion, not bei g truthful. That is the type of issue where you either cut all ties to the perpetrator, or decide to stick with them through whatever may come. If they will stick by him through those issues, they will continue to do so even in the face of video evidence of him violently raping a preteen. I'm not saying that he has for the record, but if he did and it came out on video it would immediately be labelled as fake news by every single trump supporter still following him, and would be shrugged at by more or less everyone who still claims to be "on the fence".
FartyBlartFast wrote: » Eh? I've not heard of this yet?
Dog Man Star wrote: » FartyBlartFast wrote: » Trump was under investigation for rao9jng a 13 year old child in 2016, and it didn't turn his voters off though. And to be honest, anyone claiming to be one the fence in the wake of child concentration camps is in my opinion, not bei g truthful. That is the type of issue where you either cut all ties to the perpetrator, or decide to stick with them through whatever may come. If they will stick by him through those issues, they will continue to do so even in the face of video evidence of him violently raping a preteen. I'm not saying that he has for the record, but if he did and it came out on video it would immediately be labelled as fake news by every single trump supporter still following him, and would be shrugged at by more or less everyone who still claims to be "on the fence". You are, of course, right. But I suspect a plethora of evidence showing Trump involved in the rape of these children will finish him off. We can all cast off media, influence, etc. Any of us with children can pardon men like Trump.
Dog Man Star wrote: » FartyBlartFast wrote: » Eh? I've not heard of this yet? Heh? Trump's big meeting of social media giants takes place today. He has not invited Facebook, Twitter nor Instagram, he has invited the extreme right wing elements on social media.
Among them are Bill Mitchell, a radio host who has promoted the extremist QAnon conspiracy theory on Twitter; Carpe Donktum, an anonymous troll who won a contest put on by the fringe media organization InfoWars for an anti-media meme; and Ali Alexander, an activist who attempted to smear Sen. Kamala Harris by saying she is not an "American black" following the first Democratic presidential debates. O'Keefe, the guerrilla journalist whose group Project Veritas tried to trick reporters at the Washington Post by planting a source who told the paper that she had been impregnated as a teenager by failed Republican Senate candidate Roy Moore; Charlie Kirk, the founder of the right-wing student group Turning Point USA who sometimes posts misleading information on social media; and Benny Johnson, the journalist-turned-activist who was fired for plagiarism by BuzzFeed and demoted at the Independent Journal Review for violating company standards.
Dog Man Star wrote: » To clarify: those on the fence will not vote for a man who had abused children. They admired him having sex with pornstars, playboy models, "he's a man after all", Trump the alpha male. Paying 13 year-old girls to suck him off may not be so glamorous. Not many of us are Playboy models, but a lot of us have young daughters. This will kill him, thank God. He's finished.
Dog Man Star wrote: » Is Manic Moran still here? With his pro-Trump stance, Trump deciding his wages? No? He's gone? Manic Moran strategy: bombard thread with boring statistics, claim no bias and disappear for two months. A US soldier, automatically beyond criticism. In reality a pro-Trump cretin.
Dog Man Star wrote: » I beg to differ. The Epstein case is a bombshell to Trump. Epstein's arrogance is astonishing, cds labelled with child porn? One image of Trump will sink him for good. As I said yesterday, the Epstein case will explode over the next few weeks. There are potentially hundreds of girls involved, how many will identify Trump if he is involved? Hundreds. The backing of the FBI will give a voice to them. No question, Trump is fretting at this much more than Mueller. There is still a solid chance Barr will block Mueller's hearing, if he can. Barr has hinted at it already. Your average Trump supporter cares little for Russian interference. Child molesting is a different story.
FartyBlartFast wrote: » I have to agree with you unfortunately - their mixture of ignoring or gleefully cheering while young children are flung into concentration camps (and there is zero doubt anymore that they are just that) shows exactly how much they care about kids. Many of these children have also mysteriously disappeared in the interim.
dr.fuzzenstein wrote: » But you see, those are brown children from south of the border. It doesn't matter a sh*t to the MAGA heads what happens to them. If they starve, get sick, get shot, drown, raped, disappear, it's all "their own or their parents fault", because their logic dictates that South America is a sh*thole, but you deserve to die if you try to come to the US. In this case it's white, Christian US girls, so people of value, well, as long as they come from rich, god-fearing, republican households. If they're trailer trash, it'll be their own fault again. Remember, it's only bad if it happens to the "right" people, anyone else only has themselves to blame and they deserve what happened to them. Poor people of the wrong skin colour, country of origin and religion are worthless and stupid and therefore disposable. It is ok to bomb, rape or murder them. That's the American way.
Gintonious wrote: » https://twitter.com/kylegriffin1/status/1149435562480340993 He wouldn't have liked that.
pixelburp wrote: » The phantom "liberal bias" that can be neither proved or disproved given Google et al's proprietary technology.
serfboard wrote: » Although I'm not a fan of Pelosi, I don't think she's in the wrong here. What's the point in the House voting to impeach only to have the Senate block it?It's gesture politics that will take up a huge amount of time and energy and achieve nothing.
peddlelies wrote: » When I google searched "Lindsey Graham" after he gave that hearing speech and there was a quite a stir about it, the three news links that came up at the top of the page were two from Vox and one from Salon lambasting him.
peddlelies wrote: » When I google searched "Lindsey Graham" after he gave that hearing speech and there was a quite a stir about it, the three news links that came up at the top of the page were two from Vox and one from Salon lambasting him. I never ever visit those sites, and they say it's some type of personal algorithm so why would they appear as the first links? At the time conservatives were rallying behind Kavanaugh and obviously liberals against it. I gotta be honest, this whole "google liberal bias" thing doesn't seem like a fantasy to me especially with all the leaks lately. They come across as progressive activists and I don't see how anyone could claim otherwise with a straight face. The difference is they favour one side so that side is happy to go along with it and turn a blind eye. I stopped using google anyway, duckduckgo and even Microsofts bing search yield far more diverse search results. Just out of interest I googled "Trump" now and below the news stories ( 2 cnn, 1 guardian ) were 3 videos links to msnbc.com, another site i never visit
batgoat wrote: » The rose garden was one of those moments where it summarised how much the white house has descended into craziness. It wouldn't be out of place in an episode of Black Mirror.https://twitter.com/katierogers/status/1149436290707927043?s=19
Carry wrote: » Yes, it's gesture politics, but when did change ever happen when people thought what's the point? No change of society, or revolution if you so will, ever happened when people thought it's too much effort, or as you said "huge amount of time and energy". That's a very lazy approach to politics.
serfboard wrote: » Although I'm not a fan of Pelosi, I don't think she's in the wrong here. What's the point in the House voting to impeach only to have the Senate block it? It's gesture politics that will take up a huge amount of time and energy and achieve nothing.
Leroy42 wrote: » Pelosi knows that the GOP, as shown numerous times by McConnell, will under no circumstances have anything to do with impeachment. It is doomed to failure and will be painted as the DNC having no actual policies beyond 'Hate Trump'. There is clearly more than enough to impeach Trump, he should at the very least be questioned over Ivanka and Kushners roles, KAC breaking the rules and his failure to put his business's in a blind trust. That is before we get to his selection of Putin's word over the CIA/FBI. That is before we get to his refusal to take election interference seriously. The current set up shows that the much vaunted checks and balances is not fit for purpose as the 3 strands are no longer independent of each other but very much working in conjunction with each other (that may well have always been the case but have been shown in stark reality the last 2+ years). So to answer your question, there is no point having an impeachment process when the likes of McConnell and the rest of the gop senators are most interested in their party then they are the country.
peddlelies wrote: » I googled Lindsey Graham at the time of the Kavanaugh hearings after he made that stand, obviously googling him now will yield different results. It was the hottest political topic at that time so claiming now Lindsey Graham yields different results is a moot point. Point is - when I wanted to see how Lindsey Graham was received on the right in a big political moment, I got linked to three far left sites I NEVER click. Obviously it's not a scientific study on my part.
