But anytime you discuss the matter, they deny it and talk about "rights."
And then they quote the 'constitution'. So annoying. Actually I already covered that, except I said it was boring, not annoying: This is one of those issues that's incredibly boring because the chatter on the surface is all lies, and never stops.
Really, everyone KNOWS Democrats want to stretch their ability to stuff ballot boxes, and have for a long time. But anytime you discuss the matter, they deny it and talk about "rights." Then the discussion is misdirected into their little rabbit hole.
But it really is all about stealing elections. Always was, always will be.
|
|
|
|
Weren't Americans fighting facists in WW2? Should they also punish the veterans retroactively?
So the violent extremist left has killed off the old Antifa, skinned it, and wears that skin as a shroud to ward off complaints about it's intents and purpose. The Left has done this sort of thing many times. It's nothing new. |
|
|
|
i bet tecshare has very little education on what was happening in europe when facism was spreading. if he did he would never link todays shit for brains that are burning down the country to the antifacists that were resisting hitler and mussolini.
The "Antifa" are amazingly identical to Hilter's brown shirts, and other provacateur operations of the 1920-1940s. |
|
|
|
i bet tecshare has very little education on what was happening in europe when facism was spreading. if he did he would never link todays shit for brains that are burning down the country to the antifacists that were resisting hitler and mussolini.
My guess is the thought process went something like this: Trump: 'antifa is a terrorist organization.' Other people: 'it's not an organization, it's a movement.' TECSHARE: Those other people are questioning Trump. I must prove them wrong! **googles anti facists** Bingo! 'They are in fact an international organization, and they have been in Europe since the 20's!' Other people: **facepalm** "LOCK THEM UP!!!" |
|
|
|
This guy spray painted "Free stuff for everyone zone" on the side of the Autozone near the police station before breaking the windows. Akin to shouting fire in a crowded movie theater. This act sparked riots across the US destroying businesses more than the government already had during their plandemic. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cAnXlUfB7VI Don't you think that it's important to know who he is? He's obviously not one of the peaceful protesters. Wouldn't you think the government would want to know who he is?.... Probably the government does know who he is, and who called him and who he called, and how the organized subversion of initially, naive protests actually occurred. Of course, this means there was no random act sparking riots across the USA. These people have now been called a "Terrorist Organization" and I hope they get what they deserve. |
|
|
|
....
but with that said. people need to actually read things from multiple sources and think for themselves and stop just being a mindless sheep following someone elses scripts and copying someone else.....
That's pretty hard for a sock puppet to do... |
|
|
|
...
There will be blood either way.
If that is so, that's against the wises of 99% of the people in the US. This is a situation where pretty much everyone has condemned the actions of a policeman who saw the video of his actions. |
|
|
|
It’s an open secret that Trump doesn’t likes his authority being challenged, and if anyone tries to challenge him then he believes that he has to crush that person/organisation to set an example for others, and hence I’m not surprised that he’s declared war on Twitter after Twitter decided that it would fact check two of his tweets.
It’s also worth mentioning that he’s very angry with them that he’s decided to sign a order to either shut them down, or to regulate them ...
Hey, does that mean we can have FactCheck on Biden too? No? Why? Pretty deafening silence there, guys.... |
|
|
|
It’s an open secret that Trump doesn’t likes his authority being challenged, and if anyone tries to challenge him then he believes that he has to crush that person/organisation to set an example for others, and hence I’m not surprised that he’s declared war on Twitter after Twitter decided that it would fact check two of his tweets.
It’s also worth mentioning that he’s very angry with them that he’s decided to sign a order to either shut them down, or to regulate them ...
Hey, does that mean we can have FactCheck on Biden too? No? Why? |
|
|
|
a women calls the police because she has been threathend by a black man,
but the joke is she then got punished, because they accused her of calling the police based on race and not based on the threat.
.....
either way this is another milestone of lowering of the american society. america will not be able to lead the world if its so broken.
Our American society has always been completely nuts. |
|
|
|
If someone had pulled that on me I'd be very, very angry. Apparently most Democrats have never heard of the "sunk cost" fallacy, AKA " escalation of commitment".  That's a good one. I had a buddy that bought a new car on a seven year loan, and a couple years in he wanted to set something different. "I can't sell it! I'm underwater! I have to just keep paying!"It may or may not be REEEE, but I'd like to see Twitch talk about what American values he holds primary, and how they reflect candidates that should be brought to the front. What one is FOR is more interesting than what one is AGAINST. On the subject of REEEE, the vise tightens. https://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/499586-new-fbi-document-confirms-the-trump-campaign-was-investigated-without |
|
|
|
You really need to step back and take a wider view of these events.
This guy was a very short term hire on Trump's team, and that was several years back.
Nobody cares. Nobody SHOULD care.
Ahhh. Just like Flynn. We go through all the evidence, you and TEC go into Johnnie Cochran mode and when it's obvious there's really no defense, you decide not to care. Not me. I'm simply asking you to take a wider view. I really don't care. Why should I? Why should I care about some guy that was on Trump's team for a month or two years ago? If you're only interested in pwning the libtards and being blindly loyal to Trump you definitely shouldn't care. If the chairman of the Trump campaign actually was colluding with Russia (he was)...that would mean the Mueller report was justified (it was) and your whole world would be flipped upside down. Definitely don't go read Pg 66 - 168: https://www.justice.gov/storage/report.pdfAnd if you do, def skip the Paul Manafort section (129- 144). No reason for you to care about any of that and risk getting TDS. You really do seem to be stuck in a belief in a fantasy that was concocted to destroy the presidency. That fantasy was purposefully created from nothing. It's now been well proven to be a fiction. Democrats invented it for, at the least, Democrats to believe it. If someone had pulled that on me I'd be very, very angry. |
|
|
|
You really need to step back and take a wider view of these events.
This guy was a very short term hire on Trump's team, and that was several years back.
Nobody cares. Nobody SHOULD care.
Ahhh. Just like Flynn. We go through all the evidence, you and TEC go into Johnnie Cochran mode and when it's obvious there's really no defense, you decide not to care. Not me. I'm simply asking you to take a wider view. I really don't care. Why should I? Why should I care about some guy that was on Trump's team for a month or two years ago? |
|
|
|
I'm drawing the conclusion that Paul Manafort, former Trump Campaign Chairman, has a felony conviction for conspiracy to defraud the United States.
You really need to step back and take a wider view of these events. This guy was a very short term hire on Trump's team, and that was several years back. Nobody cares. Nobody SHOULD care. |
|
|
|
.....
Weird how simple things like voter ID laws and cleaning up voter rolls are so heavily resisted by Democrats even though you seem to agree these are prudent steps to assure election integrity. I guess as long as none of the illegals voting are Russians it is fine right?
This is one of those issues that's incredibly boring because the chatter on the surface is all lies, and never stops. Really, everyone KNOWS Democrats want to stretch their ability to stuff ballot boxes, and have for a long time. But anytime you discuss the matter, they deny it and talk about "rights." Then the discussion is misdirected into their little rabbit hole. But it really is all about stealing elections. Always was, always will be. |
|
|
|
...
"So do you."
What? What the fuck does that even mean? That doesn't even make any sense linguistically let along logically.
It doesn't make sense because you removed the statement I was responding to.  "He admitted it did it." What? What the fuck does that even mean? That doesn't even make any sense linguistically let along logically. |
|
|
|
From " Report On The Investigation Into Russian Interference In The 2016 Presidential Election" P. 66 So far I see a failed real estate licensing deal with no direct ties to the Kremlin or Putin, and Manafort previously doing some lobbying for USA allies, Ukraine. I don't see this claim supported anywhere: his campaign manager was working with russia to help get trump elected. he told them if trump won, they would have support from america on their invasion of ukraine. You're only on the first page of chapter IV "RUSSIAN GOVERNMENT LINKS TO AND CONTACTS WITH THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN". I recommend reading the whole chapter, but if you want to skip ahead Section 8 is all about Manafort. If you if you see a name you don't recognize, make sure you ctrl+f the name to find an explanation of what that persons role is. The Russian names are confusing to keep track of - at least for me. Pro tip: The table of contents is clickable. Are you trying to draw conclusions about guilt based on charges that did not result in a conviction on that charge by the jury involved? |
|
|
|
....The fact that you are focusing away from demolition shows that you believe it....
No, it doesn't. That's crazy talk. The way you find out if someone believes in some sort of "demolition" is simply to ask them. |
|
|
|
....
See you, along with claiming the explosives were cast into the concrete thirty years prior. A sort of non-existent magical thermite, wasn't it? Tell us about that magical powder.
What is magical thermite? .... A type of nano-thermite that is detailed in your prior posts. All searchable. We can look them up. I just thought you'd like to explain the idea yourself. Since it is look-up-able, no. I don't want to waste the time.  Still believe in the theory of nano-thermite poured with the concrete during construction? It's okay if you don't want to answer. No matter how hard we try to believe in the wildest stuff, sometimes it's just hard. Did the nano-thermite seep out of those big beams, sort of like sap from a tree? And I understand you believe all the planes were controlled by robotics. Where were all the people whose families thought they were on those planes? Where did they go hide at? Are they still there? So many questions. Oh, also how about stopping the lying and misrepresentation about what other people say? Like this silly thing you just blabbed. Oh, and btw, thanks for confirming that you know the Towers came down by demolition.There is nothing anywhere I said on the lines of "knowing the Towers came down by demolition." Nowhere. If there is please show the quote. |
|
|
|
You know I already agreed it was fucked up the way the FISA warrants were handled, right? What else do you want me to address? Yet at the same time you downplayed it by saying you don't think it was criminal activity. It was in fact not only criminal, but treasonous. Your little guessing game diversionary topic sliding is irrelevant. The only people who have been convicted of felonies are the ones that were being investigated by Mueller, and working for Trump. Not even an indictment when it comes to the 'investigate the investigators' investigation. Durham isn't done yet, so that could still change.Let me get this straight. I want to be sure I understand the REASONING in your argument. Investigations of the past that are concluded, some have indictments and convictions. Investigations of the present that are active, do not have indictments and convictions. I just don't know what to say. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
