BootmanLA Posted May 31 Report Share Posted May 31 39 minutes ago, harrysmith26 said: [think before following links] [think before following links] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Covfefe Since there's an entire Wikipedia article dedicated to a "typo"/misfired tweet. You must entirely discount anything that website says... , because they're a "cheap insult site". And that includes anything about whether the 2020 election had real non-rigged results or not. And you also discount any of the "journalists" who reported endlessly on "Covfefe", whether they are ones cited at the bottom of that article, or not! I make typos occasionally, just like almost anyone. I try to correct them as I go, but some undoubtedly slip through. The only thing I think "covfefe" could possibly have been intended to be was "coffee" and the fact that he didn't see that glaring an error before he hit send is pretty strong evidence to me he was high when he made it. Trump for years has displayed symptoms of addiction to something - most like Adderall or something like that. But I'll grant it was a typo - just not one that someone with his supposed massive intellect, the best intellect, no one has a better intellect than he has, people come up to him with tears in their eyes and say "Sir, that intellect, it's amazing, I've never known anyone with an intellect like that" could possibly make. Nowadays, of course, he's just becoming senile. Every one of his "rallies" is a long rant barely elevated above "Get off my lawn!" by his invoking whoever he's currently got the reds over. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BootmanLA Posted May 31 Report Share Posted May 31 On 5/27/2024 at 5:39 PM, BootmanLA said: He allowed his surrogate, Michael Cohen, to pay off a porn actress to keep her quiet about a sexual encounter that would, if revealed at the time of the payoff, would probably have killed his chances of winning the election - but never declared that payment as an in-kind contribution (because that contribution would itself have been illegal, having been made by a corporation). He further orchestrated a coverup of that payment by having said surrogate claim he was "on retainer" when there was in fact no such retainer agreement (a requirement for such arrangements under NY law), and further falsely declared the payments as "legal expenses" when no legal work was done for the payments. I realize some members here may be living under a rock and not getting the news, but there's a whole trial going on in New York right now about precisely this issue. And to follow this up: a jury of Trump's peers agrees, convicting him on all 34 felony counts today. They heard the evidence and they heard his defenses, and they decided. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
harrysmith26 Posted May 31 Report Share Posted May 31 (edited) 11 hours ago, BootmanLA said: I make typos occasionally, just like almost anyone. I try to correct them as I go, but some undoubtedly slip through. The only thing I think "covfefe" could possibly have been intended to be was "coffee" and the fact that he didn't see that glaring an error before he hit send is pretty strong evidence to me he was high when he made it. Trump for years has displayed symptoms of addiction to something - most like Adderall or something like that. But I'll grant it was a typo - just not one that someone with his supposed massive intellect, the best intellect, no one has a better intellect than he has, people come up to him with tears in their eyes and say "Sir, that intellect, it's amazing, I've never known anyone with an intellect like that" could possibly make. Nowadays, of course, he's just becoming senile. Every one of his "rallies" is a long rant barely elevated above "Get off my lawn!" by his invoking whoever he's currently got the reds over. No, I was talking about the previous poster and his relationship with the website Wikipedia (or anyone else who gave extensive coverage to Covfefe.) Because he said anyone who paid attention too much to typos was petty and childish. So therefore he should ignore anyone who said anything about Covfefe, but neither he or you could address that - that's why you just went on another mind-numbing platitude or "generalism" about "OOGHHGH,, LOTS OF US DO THIS OR THAT FROM TIME TO TIME...", in order to try and bore me into submission like you always do. Yourself calling anyone else "senile" is a joke, as every day since about October 2005 you've wheeled yourself from your shack to your mailbox waiting for Glorious Führer Allah to deliver a magic carpet, as "payment" for sucking up to and fawning over a batshit insane violent "religion" which has only ever been known for violence or threats of violence. Edited May 31 by harrysmith26 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hntnhole Posted May 31 Report Share Posted May 31 <<<yawn>>> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
50latinos Posted May 31 Report Share Posted May 31 1 hour ago, harrysmith26 said: No, I was talking about the previous poster and his relationship with the website Wikipedia (or anyone else who gave extensive coverage to Covfefe.) Because he said anyone who paid attention too much to typos was petty and childish. So therefore he should ignore anyone who said anything about Covfefe, but neither he or you could address that - that's why you just went on another mind-numbing platitude or "generalism" about "OOGHHGH,, LOTS OF US DO THIS OR THAT FROM TIME TO TIME...", in order to try and bore me into submission like you always do. LOL Even you have to admit that an unintelligible word tweeted by a president of the US, who at that point was already known by tweeting late night unhinged rants full of typos and unnecessary capitalizations, justifies way more attention and even derision than a typo in a message board about fucking without condoms. But I understand, people like you have little more than this type of false equivalencies and generalizations to justify their allegiance to the cult of Trump. By the way, and since we are in the subject of typos and crazy words, what do you think the word "generalism" means? 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nanana Posted June 1 Report Share Posted June 1 (edited) I find It very easy to get that people have a wide range of inclinations to be more liberal or more conservative but I find It really hard to deal with people who are willing to criticize others for things their party leaders also do. Most of the Trump-deranged folks on this thread seem to give Biden a complete get-out-of-jail free card for massive corruption in the Biden family milking not companies but the country. I have no problem with holding Trump accountable; what I have a problem with are people who expect accountability for another party but let their party completely off the hook. When you do that, everyone watching you loses confidence in your competence. Edited June 1 by nanana Misspelling Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
50latinos Posted June 1 Report Share Posted June 1 2 hours ago, nanana said: I find It very easy to get that people have a wide range of inclinations to be more liberal or more conservative but I find It really hard to deal with people who are willing to criticize others for things their party leaders also do. Most of the Trump-deranged folks on this thread seem to give Biden a complete get-out-of-jail free card for massive corruption in the Biden family milking not companies but the country. I have no problem with holding Trump accountable; what I have a problem with are people who expect accountability for another party but let their party completely off the hook. When you do that, everyone watching you loses confidence in your competence. That would make a lot of sense if any evidence of this "massive corruption in the Biden family" existed. Since they took over the leadership in January 2023, House republicans have wasted millions investigating these alleged crimes and corruption and have found nothing. The impeachment inquiry ordered by Trump and green-lighted by the ousted Speaker McCarthy resulted in nothing. The supposed whistleblower turned out to be a Putin asset who could prove nothing. So, yes. I am very sorry that you find it hard to deal with, but as a general rule bullshit is not something to be taken seriously. The same goes for the millions of dollars and thousands of hours wasted investigating Hillary Clinton. There should be some accountability for all that money wasted, don't you think?. On the other hand a jury of his peers in which selection his lawyers had ample say, after many hours of testimony and hundreds of documentary pieces of evidence, found Trump guilty of 34 criminal charges. Can you see the difference? 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
verslut Posted June 1 Report Share Posted June 1 I don't understand why Americans care about politicians so much. There are some politicians I approve of. But I don't take half the crap coming out of their mouths seriously. It's just posturing for the job. But so many MAGA Republicans would work Trump's dick and balls if they had the opportunity. I can't be bothered to care that much about some random politician. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nanana Posted June 1 Report Share Posted June 1 2 hours ago, 50latinos said: On the other hand a jury of his peers in which selection his lawyers had ample say, after many hours of testimony and hundreds of documentary pieces of evidence, found Trump guilty of 34 criminal charges. Can you see the difference? I appreciate that you think the difference is that the mechanisms that tried to get to the underlying truth had integrity and operated in an equivalent manner, and thus that the things that pass as truths have been subjected to the same quality of analysis and introspection. I happen NOT to agree that the underlying facts were investigated with equivalent diligence and that the resulting "truths" are underpinned by the same rigor. I don't think this is unique to partisan Democrats btw, think there are many examples of partisan Republicans giving their own a lighter touch. Not trying to play "GOTCHA" 50latinos and think you are doing a great job of channeling the way a lot of people in the country think about these issues. No wrong answer here, but can you tell me how you interpret two major sources of data here: 1) the Hilary Clinton e-mails of 2016; and 2) the Hunter Biden laptop story suppression of 2020? I have a guess, but I hate to treat people like stereotypes. If you're willing to try a 3rd, how do you interpret Biden's efforts to fire the Attorney-General-equivalent of Ukraine at a time when his son Hunter was on Burisma's board without any experience in the gas/oil industry but with easy access to AF2? (BTW, if I were asking a Republican, I might focus on Obama's decision to bail out the banks, or Trump's decision to bomb Soleimani.) I do not object to Democratic partisanship anymore than I object to Republican partisanship; I object to PARTISANSHIP itself. It corrodes trust in institutions when people see the opposite party misusing the instruments of government to accumulate power, and I think this has happened on both sides. I wonder how we could reverse trend toward tribal partisanship and rebuild some trust. I really do, just not sure it is in our cards, but still hopeful. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
50latinos Posted June 1 Report Share Posted June 1 7 minutes ago, nanana said: I appreciate that you think the difference is that the mechanisms that tried to get to the underlying truth had integrity and operated in an equivalent manner, and thus that the things that pass as truths have been subjected to the same quality of analysis and introspection. I happen NOT to agree that the underlying facts were investigated with equivalent diligence and that the resulting "truths" are underpinned by the same rigor. I don't think this is unique to partisan Democrats btw, think there are many examples of partisan Republicans giving their own a lighter touch. Not trying to play "GOTCHA" 50latinos and think you are doing a great job of channeling the way a lot of people in the country think about these issues. No wrong answer here, but can you tell me how you interpret two major sources of data here: 1) the Hilary Clinton e-mails of 2016; and 2) the Hunter Biden laptop story suppression of 2020? I have a guess, but I hate to treat people like stereotypes. If you're willing to try a 3rd, how do you interpret Biden's efforts to fire the Attorney-General-equivalent of Ukraine at a time when his son Hunter was on Burisma's board without any experience in the gas/oil industry but with easy access to AF2? (BTW, if I were asking a Republican, I might focus on Obama's decision to bail out the banks, or Trump's decision to bomb Soleimani.) I do not object to Democratic partisanship anymore than I object to Republican partisanship; I object to PARTISANSHIP itself. It corrodes trust in institutions when people see the opposite party misusing the instruments of government to accumulate power, and I think this has happened on both sides. I wonder how we could reverse trend toward tribal partisanship and rebuild some trust. I really do, just not sure it is in our cards, but still hopeful. If you think that the Clinton emails and the Hunter Biden laptop stories were suppressed, then we live in different planets. At this point no one can argue that the media explosion that occurred when in October 2016 James Comey announced the reopening of the Clinton emails investigation made Trump president. Hunter Biden is in a world of hurt, prosecuted by his father's DOJ. The president hasn't lifted a finger to help him, as he shouldn't. These false equivalencies you are putting out there are as dangerous as the misinformation emanating from the bowels of the MAGA movement. Whether you are a republican or not is irrelevant and inconsequential. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
topblkmale Posted June 1 Report Share Posted June 1 1 hour ago, verslut said: But so many MAGA Republicans would work Trump's dick and balls if they had the opportunity. Yeah, no. We really didn't need that visualization. Putin perhaps. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nanana Posted June 1 Report Share Posted June 1 Sorry to trigger you 50latinos. Diversity of thought will exist regardless of your preparedness for it. After trying to argue people to my position during COVID, I have had to make peace with the fact that truth is fractured and god has made room for us to co-exist if we are smart enough. I wish you the same peace. I leave it to the partisans to either make peace or leave room for the next apex species to figure it out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hntnhole Posted June 1 Report Share Posted June 1 4 hours ago, verslut said: I don't understand why Americans care about politicians so much Generally, historically, we don't. This election cycle though, there's something new going on in the Conservative party. That venerable institution has been taken over by mischief-makers that have an aggressive cultural agenda, as opposed to merely a political one. These people, formerly merely "conservatives", are actively trying to subvert our long-standing policy of Freedom of Religion, i.e. the Constitutional right to believe and practice any belief system, so long as it doesn't deleteriously affect others. The Magaroid crowd is hiding their hatreds behind a belief that their own dependency on magical pie-in-the-sky is properly shoved down everyone else's throats. To wit: the boy-blunder of the HoR - Mr. Johnson - has actually said that he is actively attempting to help The Deity he pretends to believe in bring about "the end times" - i.e. the destruction of the current population of the earth, in favor of some heavenly and magical "kingdom" suddenly appearing, as though that all-powerful Deity needed any help in the first place. Even the sheer hubris of that little man is breathtaking. In short, one political party has allowed itself to be overtaken by religious charlatans, and headed by a truly ravening beast, and the other hasn't. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted June 1 Report Share Posted June 1 Hello all! I have read all these post for a while. It's sad that there are people who cannot accept a Republican being gay. I am truly shocked ar some.of the comments and the reason is, yes I am gay, I am a republican, do I believe in all republican issues...I can't be man enough and say no. But, do all gay democrats stand up for all Democrats issues...if you do...then you are not doing you job as an American citizen diving in and looking at all the issues. I am not mad or.angry, but I am.sad by allot these comments lump.me in where I don't belong. Time for me to.leave. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scarnick Posted June 2 Report Share Posted June 2 Have a nice time Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now