Donald J Trump Canned Beans For Sale Thread

[The_Noble_Cause]

Another definitive article on the dossier.

https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/p ... ty-909539/

[The_Noble_Cause]

Correct, IMO, it's not couragous....it's a failing campaign getting desperate for attention.

The easy route would be to suck at the teat of Saudi Arabia - like the last Democratic nominee and several current contenders. It's telling that you ascribe malicious motives to a candidate who has long followed her conscience.

You do, obviously. Thank you for caring so much that you acknowledged it with your reply!

If you - or anyone - replies to me, I respond. That is all.

[The_Noble_Cause]

Dude. Posting dick and vagina picks, and your weird fantasies such as above, trying to get a reaction...that is EXACTLY what drama is. You have been doing this constantly and consistently for almost 20yrs. You engage in drama more than anybody else on this entire site.

Reminder – you started this navel gazing exchange by responding to a post not even directed at you.

I asked another poster (not you) for proof regarding the dossier.
If I am the one trolling for attention, why are you interjecting yourself into conversations not involving you?

As for any drama being created due to the posting of vags & dicks, that’s in your head - and related to the fact that you secretly wish you were born with one and not the other.

First of all, it's schematics - and you know it. Barr is the head of the Justice Department as AG.

Schemantics? LOL. So now the self-appointed MR grammar/spelling commandant doesn’t know the difference between semantics and schemantics. Please be consistent!

Also, it’s not “schemantics” or whatever, to point out that Barr didn't open a criminal investigation.Durham is running the probe and sought the powers of criminal prosecution. The more you attempt to discuss the actual substance of issues, the more apparent it becomes you haven’t a clue.

Second, so what if you quoted the NYT. That doesn't make it a true statement.

Correct – I quoted the NYTimes. Unlike you, I believe in actually using sources and not making up my own facts (see “Hillary had permission”).

If you actually did read the article you would know the source was an existing investigation. What you were posting was simply not true.

I previously made it clear on here that the Durham probe was ongoing and said “with the Durham probe into Russiagate now being a criminal inquiry." Nice try.

The idea that I am somehow uninformed on the latest Russiagate developments is ridiculous. I have been following it closely from Day 1. Because of this, I accurately knew it was bullshit while you were engaging in fantasies of Trump being frog marched out of the White House.

You go and bitch on and on about others people quoting the news and posting lies. YOU DID THE EXACT SAME THING. You don't even hold yourself up to your own standards.

No, I point out people, like you, that DON’T quote the news at all and make up your own facts.

Obviously, you DO need to be reminded to actually read the articles you are quoting headlines from.

It’s completely accurate to say that the justice department has opened a criminal inquiry.
To date, the NYTimes and others have still not changed their headline.
If it bothers you so much, contact their editor.

What? I never said you said any of that. Quit lying so much. I am not playing word games at all. You are just making shit up and posting bullshit again. You seem to ALWAYS do that when you are caught posting something completely wrong.

You clearly don’t know what you’re saying....
First, you thought you caught me in a lie when I was actually quoting the NYTimes word-for-word verbatim.
Now you are attempting to discredit various sources in the media, including the NYTimes, who used the exact same accurate language I did.

One can be aware that Durham was assigned to review Russiagate back in May and still say that a criminal inquiry has been opened in October.
There is nothing contradictory or false about that.

The Durham probe was never initially opened a criminal matter.

That doesn't even make sense and I'm not sure what you mean. When you can write better than RPM, get back to me.

Makes perfect sense.
The Durham probe started as an administrative review.
Now that it is criminal, it is completely accurate to say it has been opened as a criminal inquiry.
You are desperately attempting to split-hairs. You have nothing.

You would rather post dicks and vaginas.

I proudly stand behind all of my posts 100%

And, for the record, I don't call people who disagree with me zombies, I call people who blindly follow Trump and repeat his crazy BS seemingly without a mind of their own, Trump zombies.

Anyone who dares to deviate from voting straight Democratic ticket on here is called a "zombie".
Independent posters, like Boomchild and OhSherrie, are anything but “zombies” and they too were on the receiving end of childish attacks.

Now you are engaging in revisionist history and claiming that a mere letter was enough to tip the scales.

No, opening an investigation that had been closed for weeks did.

You previously said that Hillary could go to jail and still win.
If her poll numbers could withstand her being behind bars, surely, she could withstand Comey’s letter.
So which is it?

That is not what that means. There can be collusion and/or coordination without a violation of law. There can be collusion and it can rise to the level of conspiracy. There can be coordination and it can rise to the level of conspiracy. Collusion, coordination and conspiracy and three different things with three different definitions.

And around and around we go....
You are just throwing words around because you don’t understand the law and obviously didn’t read Mueller’s report.
Mueller clearly explained that in place of collusion, he used the framework of conspiracy law.
He did not say there were three individual definitions with three separate standards of evidence.

First you argued that Rosenstein didn’t use the word collusion. That’s false

You are lying.

No, I’m not. Your own words below -

“Collusion is not a crime. Period.

Nowhere in Rosenstein's letter does the word collusion appear.

Mueller was hired to investigate Russia's involvement in the 2016 election, and any links and coordination the Trump campaign had with the Russia government.
Yes, he was authorized to prosecute crimes. But, it was about Russia interference and understanding what they did....and to understand the Trump campaigns connections to it. Saying that Mueller was investigating the crime of collusion is in your imagination, and Trump's. It is flat out not true...and a lie.”

I said that no-where in the letter that started the investigation did the word "collusion" appear. That is a FACT, not an argument.

That's not what you said. You simply said “letter.” Rosenstein wrote numerous of letters. As previously mentioned, he used both the words coordination and collude in regards to Mueller’s investigative scope.

Do the absence of words matter or not? Make up your mind.

You are making up a conversation that never happened. I simply stated a fact. You are making up an entire conversation in your head.

You stated that Rosenstein never used the word collusion in a letter. Well, he used the word “collude” in outlining Mueller’s role in investigating Manafort’s crimes. By your own logic, the words employed by Rosenstein are the legally defined crimes Mueller was tasked with proving. However, Rosenstein used both coordination (not a crime) and collude (not a crime).

You don't know what you're talking about. You want to talk about pointless drama? This entire post is an empty exercise in maintaining the facade that you are knowledgeable. Like I said, the jig is up. Your track record on politics is beyond abysmal.

It's a cartoon with a face drawn on it. But, obviously, that's real enough for you...and as I said, you can be the expert on cartoon vaginas, and now dicks. Doesn't bother me at all.

Of course it doesn't bother you. You're the same guy who has a NSA-sized secret server for darkweb midget sheizer donkey porn.

[The_Noble_Cause]

Russiagate/WMD similarities continued.

https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/p ... ds-910172/

[Monker]

Correct, IMO, it's not couragous....it's a failing campaign getting desperate for attention.

The easy route would be to suck at the teat of Saudi Arabia - like the last Democratic nominee and several current contenders. It's telling that you ascribe malicious motives to a candidate who has long followed her conscience.

Dude, she's in the bottom tier of candidates. Nobody is listening to what she has to say. Nobody cares what she says because she does not connect well with voters. If something doesn't change, she'll probably be dropping out.

So, yes, lashing out in dramatic ways looks to me as if she is desperate to get attention...and it's not working.

You do, obviously. Thank you for caring so much that you acknowledged it with your reply!

If you - or anyone - replies to me, I respond. That is all.

Yeah, I know...you love the attention.

[Monker]

Dude. Posting dick and vagina picks, and your weird fantasies such as above, trying to get a reaction...that is EXACTLY what drama is. You have been doing this constantly and consistently for almost 20yrs. You engage in drama more than anybody else on this entire site.

Reminder – you started this navel gazing exchange by responding to a post not even directed at you.

I asked another poster (not you) for proof regarding the dossier.
If I am the one trolling for attention, why are you interjecting yourself into conversations not involving you?

You are on a public forum. Anybody can reply to any post. There are no private discussions.

As for any drama being created due to the posting of vags & dicks, that’s in your head - and related to the fact that you secretly wish you were born with one and not the other.

I did not say you "created drama". The very fact that you post them is drama. You don't even know what drama is, obviously.

First of all, it's schematics - and you know it. Barr is the head of the Justice Department as AG.

Schemantics? LOL. So now the self-appointed MR grammar/spelling commandant doesn’t know the difference between semantics and schemantics. Please be consistent!

When people like RPM, and as you did previously, write a post that is such a mess that it has no meaning, yes, I sometimes point it out.

Also, it’s not “schemantics” or whatever, to point out that Barr didn't open a criminal investigation.Durham is running the probe and sought the powers of criminal prosecution. The more you attempt to discuss the actual substance of issues, the more apparent it becomes you haven’t a clue.

Dude, the NYT's article that all of this is based on says, "Justice Department officials have shifted an administrative review of the Russia investigation closely overseen by Attorney General William P. Barr to a criminal inquiry, according to two people familiar with the matter."

That is what was reported AT THE TIME.

If you actually did read the article you would know the source was an existing investigation. What you were posting was simply not true.

I previously made it clear on here that the Durham probe was ongoing and said “with the Durham probe into Russiagate now being a criminal inquiry." Nice try.

That is not the post that I replied to. All you did was quote a headline that implied that it was a new investigation. It isn't. Then you quoted MORE headlines that implied the same thing. It was only AFTER I quoted other headlines that showed it was an existing investigation, and quoted from inside YOUR articles whose headlines you posted, THEN you start down this line that you knew.

It's OBVIOUS that you didn't. It's OBVIOUS that you only read the headline.

You go and bitch on and on about others people quoting the news and posting lies. YOU DID THE EXACT SAME THING. You don't even hold yourself up to your own standards.

No, I point out people, like you, that DON’T quote the news at all and make up your own facts.

You posted a "fact" that wasn't true...and you can't even admit to it! Too funny.

Obviously, you DO need to be reminded to actually read the articles you are quoting headlines from.

It’s completely accurate to say that the justice department has opened a criminal inquiry.
To date, the NYTimes and others have still not changed their headline.
If it bothers you so much, contact their editor.

Dude, they all do this all the time...write a dramatic headline to get you to read the story. YOU are the one who did NOT read the story and misrepresented it by posted only the headline. All I did was point out that it wasn't 'new'. YOU are the one who is bothered by the FACT that what you posted here was NOT accurate.

First, you thought you caught me in a lie when I was actually quoting the NYTimes word-for-word verbatim.

All I did was say that what you posted was not true. YOU are now calling yourself a liar. I did not do that.

Now you are attempting to discredit various sources in the media, including the NYTimes, who used the exact same accurate language I did.

I am not trying to discredit anyone. In fact, I pointed out, and quoted, the accurate bits in the body of ALL of the articles from the headlines you posted.

Anyone who dares to deviate from voting straight Democratic ticket on here is called a "zombie".

Not true. I don't know the full ticket of how anybody votes.

When people go about and mindlessly repeat Trump's BS, I call them zombies. Get over it already.

Now you are engaging in revisionist history and claiming that a mere letter was enough to tip the scales.

No, opening an investigation that had been closed for weeks did.

You previously said that Hillary could go to jail and still win.
If her poll numbers could withstand her being behind bars, surely, she could withstand Comey’s letter.
So which is it?

Late in the race, things had tightened up a bit. When Comey's investigation ended and he let Hillary off, I felt the momentum had shifted to her favor. When he reopened the investigation, I felt everything had deflated and momentum went to Trump.

Prior to all of that, earlier in the race, damn right....I felt that Hillary would destroy him. That is absolutely true.

Mueller clearly explained that in place of collusion, he used the framework of conspiracy law.

Correct, because collusion is not a crime.

He did not say there were three individual definitions with three separate standards of evidence.

He shouldn't have to, because it is common sense....and it has nothing to do with "evidence" because collusion and coordination are not crimes.

First you argued that Rosenstein didn’t use the word collusion. That’s false

You are lying.

No, I’m not. Your own words below -

[b]“Collusion is not a crime. Period.

Nowhere in Rosenstein's letter does the word collusion appear.

Correct, and if you read what I said IN CONTEXT, you see that it was in reply to you speaking of when he hired Mueller. Any person with any common sense would know I was talking about the letter that Rosensten wrote when Mueller was hired.

It is a statement of FACT, not an argument. YOU are trying to argue about it.

You stated that Rosenstein never used the word collusion in a letter. Well, he used the word “collude” in outlining Mueller’s role in investigating Manafort’s crimes. By your own logic, the words employed by Rosenstein are the legally defined crimes Mueller was tasked with proving. However, Rosenstein used both coordination (not a crime) and collude (not a crime).

Correct. Both collusion and coordination can rise to the level of criminal conspiracy. BUT THEY DO NOT HAVE TO.

You want to talk about pointless drama? This entire post is an empty exercise in maintaining the facade that you are knowledgeable.

Again, you don't know what drama is....and I'm not going to teach you.

Of course it doesn't bother you. You're the same guy who has a NSA-sized secret server for darkweb midget sheizer donkey porn.

You are the one who constantly posts these weird fantasies. You are also the one who has a proven fetish for porn via your posting of cartoons.

[RPM]

Russiagate/WMD similarities continued.

https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/p ... ds-910172/

Excellent article, Thanks for posting. They make some really good points that should be lessons learned
instead of repeat mistakes for political gain by any particular party.

[Andrew]

None of this matters. The question is, why do you keep falling for and posting obvious lies?

ONE error. Accepted and moved on.

The rest remain in limbo. WHY does Trump bow to Putin on every issue? Why do RWNJs give him a pass for doing so? Why aren't the 40-odd accusations of groping and assault enough to end this clown's reign?

So many questions, but I'm patient.

[Andrew]

Day 1027.

Today in one sentence: Trump considered firing the intelligence community's inspector general for reporting the whistleblower's complaint to Congress; House Republicans plan to argue that "the President's state of mind" made it impossible for Trump to have committed an impeachable offense; Mick Mulvaney withdrew his request to join a federal lawsuit seeking a decision on whether top Trump officials can be compelled to testify; and Roger Stone first told one of Trump's top aides as early as spring 2016 that WikiLeaks would release material that could damage Hillary Clinton.

[Aaron]

So all of the great stuff that happens in your country and others are the USA's responsibility. Bollocks.

The tariff negotiations did make the market unstable. How are they now? We're now getting a better deal (still not equitable), things have stabilized and the markets are at all time highs.

Don't get sucked into the entrenched experts when a performance based person comes, rocks the boat, and threatens existing power structure. It's what you're watching now.

I still don't get why you chose to alienate half or more of your potential business but rock on man. I've been here since the beginning.

Bro you act like you live here. WTF? I'm not sure why you care but opinions on my pres vary.

Why not talk about your guy?

Winning!

The trade war, without taking into account the escalations from September, will shave off at least half a percentage point of U.S. GDP, and that much of a drag on the economy may tip it into the anticipated downturn. (According to a September Washington Post poll, 60 percent of Americans expect a recession in 2020.)

Because he's a complete RWNJ fuckwit backed by Murdoch, who orchestrates who gets elected here and in the USA, UK and elsewhere.

For the record - any American president has influence over the rest of the world. When such an incompetent nutjob is at the helm, everyone should be paying attention.

[Aaron]

Opinions from legal USA voters vary.

You're into the state level politics now, noting VA being in the DC freeloader, lobbyist area, deliver nothing beltway influence. Why do you care man? What's up in you're country? I don't get your interest. However, if you think the majority of our country thinks like the major cities with free handouts, you're wrong.

I think the majority across the whole country is tired of Presidump Twitter.

[The_Noble_Cause]

ONE error. Accepted and moved on.

This in itself is a lie. You have posted multiple lies. Any updates on that dossier? How about Manafort meeting Assange? It goes on and on and on.,

The rest remain in limbo. WHY does Trump bow to Putin on every issue?

Better call Mueller.

Why do RWNJs give him a pass for doing so?

You're the only rabid RWNJ on here. Ask yourself.

Why aren't the 40-odd accusations of groping and assault enough to end this clown's reign?

Why would they? America's most beloved presidents, (FDR, JFK, etc.) all had indiscretions - many taking place while in the WH.

[Aaron]

The electoral college was put in place to balance the area of the country vs. big city influence. You can call it what you want. All you have to do is look, NYC, LA, SF, Detroit, etc have all been run by libs for years. Look at the results. Call it what you want. It was put in place to downplay big city influence in the country.

That's why the greatest country in the world put in place the electoral college to deal with freeloaders. I'm not sure how the founders come up with the process but thank God they did. Maybe they had help from above.

This is simply NOT TRUE. The electoral college exists because the founders did not want a direct vote from the people. They did not trust the people to be informed and qualified enough to elect the President. Therefore, if a crazy orange man who admired dictators won the popular vote, the electoral college could over turn that crazy vote and elect someone sane.

The electoral college FAILED to do its job last election.

The second amendment ensured our local success. It was put in place to deal with corrupt government and the ability to over throw corrupt government, nothing else. We have many, they can never get them (too many to manage), and country folk are prepared to deal with the problem. Just like the founders intended. We've invested in protection of our earned property. We've not played cowboy's vs. urbans. I hope to avoid it.

You are a nut if you think you "country folk" can take on the United States military and National Guard. What a dumb-ass proposition.

[The_Noble_Cause]

Dude, she's in the bottom tier of candidates. Nobody is listening to what she has to say. Nobody cares what she says because she does not connect well with voters. If something doesn't change, she'll probably be dropping out.

In some polls, she has surpassed "upper tier" candidates like Kamala Harris. Sounds like you would prefer a Biden cakewalk coronation.

So, yes, lashing out in dramatic ways looks to me as if she is desperate to get attention...and it's not working.

Politicians attend rallies and hold press events all the time.
When Tulsi does it on Saudi Arabia, (an issue she's been consistent on), you say "she's lashing out."
What BS loaded language.

Yeah, I know...you love the attention.

My Tulsi post wasn't aimed at you. If you are so drama-averse, why are you interjecting yourself into conversations and starting drama?

[Aaron]

Man, I must be having some computer problems. Posts are not going up. I give. I'm tired of giving thought and it doesn't get posted. Likely a computer problem on my end.

[Andrew]

Man, I must be having some computer problems. Posts are not going up. I give. I'm tired of giving thought and it doesn't get posted. Likely a computer problem on my end.

No issues this side....

[Andrew]

Why aren't the 40-odd accusations of groping and assault enough to end this clown's reign?

Why would they? America's most beloved presidents, (FDR, JFK, etc.) all had indiscretions - many taking place while in the WH.

Yeah, so fuck it, he can do whatever he wants. Even if he's selling out the world to Putin. America's influence and credibility in the world has been dramatically diminished. This WILL bite you in the ass one day. If you don't care...then I'm happy for you.

[The_Noble_Cause]

Yeah, so fuck it, he can do whatever he wants. Even if he's selling out the world to Putin. America's influence and credibility in the world has been dramatically diminished. This WILL bite you in the ass one day. If you don't care...then I'm happy for you.

I simply cited history as precedent. And no, I am not scared of Putin.

[Monker]

The electoral college was put in place to balance the area of the country vs. big city influence.

This is just NOT TRUE.

From the Federalist Papers of Alexander Hamilton:
https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed68.asp

"It was desirable that the sense of the people should operate in the choice of the person to whom so important a trust was to be confided. This end will be answered by committing the right of making it, not to any preestablished body, but to men chosen by the people for the special purpose, and at the particular conjuncture."

This was written because they considered having congress, or the governors, or other elected people already in office3, choose the President.

"It was equally desirable, that the immediate election should be made by men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station, and acting under circumstances favorable to deliberation, and to a judicious combination of all the reasons and inducements which were proper to govern their choice. A small number of persons, selected by their fellow-citizens from the general mass, will be most likely to possess the information and discernment requisite to such complicated investigations."

What he is describing here is how electors are supposed to be chosen. The intention was for each state to vote for the electors who would then vote for the President. The reason they wanted to do this was because they did not trust the entirety of the population to be adequately informed and qualified to vote for President. We are supposed to be voting for the electors who we feel are most qualified and knowledgeable...NOT because they are guaranteed to vote a specific way.

"It was also peculiarly desirable to afford as little opportunity as possible to tumult and disorder. This evil was not least to be dreaded in the election of a magistrate, who was to have so important an agency in the administration of the government as the President of the United States. But the precautions which have been so happily concerted in the system under consideration, promise an effectual security against this mischief. The choice of SEVERAL, to form an intermediate body of electors, will be much less apt to convulse the community with any extraordinary or violent movements, than the choice of ONE who was himself to be the final object of the public wishes. And as the electors, chosen in each State, are to assemble and vote in the State in which they are chosen, this detached and divided situation will expose them much less to heats and ferments, which might be communicated from them to the people, than if they were all to be convened at one time, in one place."

What he is describing here is they wanted to avoid the stupidity of mob mentality, such as Trump encourages at his rallies with his "locker her up!" and "build the wall" and the rest of it. They wanted a calm and collected small number of state electors to make a rational and informed decision of who should be President.

"Nothing was more to be desired than that every practicable obstacle should be opposed to cabal, intrigue, and corruption. These most deadly adversaries of republican government might naturally have been expected to make their approaches from more than one querter, but chiefly from the desire in foreign powers to gain an improper ascendant in our councils. How could they better gratify this, than by raising a creature of their own to the chief magistracy of the Union? But the convention have guarded against all danger of this sort, with the most provident and judicious attention. They have not made the appointment of the President to depend on any preexisting bodies of men, who might be tampered with beforehand to prostitute their votes; but they have referred it in the first instance to an immediate act of the people of America, to be exerted in the choice of persons for the temporary and sole purpose of making the appointment. And they have excluded from eligibility to this trust, all those who from situation might be suspected of too great devotion to the President in office. No senator, representative, or other person holding a place of trust or profit under the United States, can be of the numbers of the electors. Thus without corrupting the body of the people, the immediate agents in the election will at least enter upon the task free from any sinister bias. Their transient existence, and their detached situation, already taken notice of, afford a satisfactory prospect of their continuing so, to the conclusion of it. The business of corruption, when it is to embrace so considerable a number of men, requires time as well as means. Nor would it be found easy suddenly to embark them, dispersed as they would be over thirteen States, in any combinations founded upon motives, which though they could not properly be denominated corrupt, might yet be of a nature to mislead them from their duty."

They were worried about corruption, especially FOREIGN corruption, influencing and helping to elect a President who would perform his duties for these corrupt groups rather than for the American people. Having electors choose the President avoid this - at least that's what they believed. Seems current events prove that theory wrong.

"All these advantages will happily combine in the plan devised by the convention; which is, that the people of each State shall choose a number of persons as electors, equal to the number of senators and representatives of such State in the national government, who shall assemble within the State, and vote for some fit person as President. Their votes, thus given, are to be transmitted to the seat of the national government, and the person who may happen to have a majority of the whole number of votes will be the President. But as a majority of the votes might not always happen to centre in one man, and as it might be unsafe to permit less than a majority to be conclusive, it is provided that, in such a contingency, the House of Representatives shall select out of the candidates who shall have the five highest number of votes, the man who in their opinion may be best qualified for the office."

Hmmm, didn't read anything about country vs. city or large state vs. small state and all of that. The founders were worried about the ignorance of the masses and the corruption of the Presidency....not the things you list.

"The process of election affords a moral certainty, that the office of President will never fall to the lot of any man who is not in an eminent degree endowed with the requisite qualifications. Talents for low intrigue, and the little arts of popularity, may alone suffice to elevate a man to the first honors in a single State; but it will require other talents, and a different kind of merit, to establish him in the esteem and confidence of the whole Union, or of so considerable a portion of it as would be necessary to make him a successful candidate for the distinguished office of President of the United States. It will not be too strong to say, that there will be a constant probability of seeing the station filled by characters pre-eminent for ability and virtue. And this will be thought no inconsiderable recommendation of the Constitution, by those who are able to estimate the share which the executive in every government must necessarily have in its good or ill administration. Though we cannot acquiesce in the political heresy of the poet who says: "For forms of government let fools contest That which is best administered is best,'' yet we may safely pronounce, that the true test of a good government is its aptitude and tendency to produce a good administration."

They were wrong. The electoral college allowed the most corrupt and dangerous President in our nations history to be elected. It failed to elect a "moral certainty". It failed providing "low intrigue". It failed to elect someone with "requisite qualifications". It failed to elect someone "in the esteem and confidence of the WHOLE UNION". "pre-eminent for ability and virtue" - LOL, Trump has shown an inability to lead the country and it seems he scoffs at virtues. "the true test of a good government is its aptitude and tendency to produce a good administration."...LOL, aptitude? Trump fails at both the administration of government, and having a "good administration", wait five minutes and someone else will be fired or quit.

So, IMO, the electoral college has failed to do its job when it elected Donald Trump. It is antiquated and useless and should be removed.

[The_Noble_Cause]

You are on a public forum. Anybody can reply to any post. There are no private discussions.

By all means, reply to whoever. But don’t turn around and complain about drama when you are actively seeking it and helping to create it. Your hypocrisy knows no bounds.

I did not say you "created drama". The very fact that you post them is drama. You don't even know what drama is, obviously.

I can't be held responsible if a 2d cartoon dong inspires you to break your court-ordered house arrest and fire up the shaded window rape van.
Any form of visual communication (.jpg, meme, emoji) does not automatically result in drama.

Dude, the NYT's article that all of this is based on says, "Justice Department officials have shifted an administrative review of the Russia investigation closely overseen by Attorney General William P. Barr to a criminal inquiry, according to two people familiar with the matter."
That is what was reported AT THE TIME.

You said Barr opened the criminal investigation. This is incorrect. It’s the equivalent of saying that Rosenstein impaneled a grand jury instead of Mueller. If you want to split hairs over stupid bullshit (“opened a criminal inquiry” vs “shifted to a criminal inquiry” vs "launched a criminal inquiry") please be consistent.

That is not the post that I replied to. All you did was quote a headline that implied that it was a new investigation. It isn't. Then you quoted MORE headlines that implied the same thing.

Correct. Unlike you, I quote actual sources and don’t make up my own facts (ex. “Hillary had permission”).

It was only AFTER I quoted other headlines that showed it was an existing investigation, and quoted from inside YOUR articles whose headlines you posted, THEN you start down this line that you knew.

I really didn’t think anyone would be pathetic enough to debate the meaning of opened/shifted/launched/transitioned. Yet here we are.

It's OBVIOUS that you didn't. It's OBVIOUS that you only read the headline.

In many cases, the headline is the most important part of the story. There is nothing incorrect with what I quoted.

You posted a "fact" that wasn't true...and you can't even admit to it! Too funny.

What, exactly, isn’t true?
The probe went from administrative to being officially opened as a criminal investigation.

Dude, they all do this all the time...write a dramatic headline to get you to read the story. YOU are the one who did NOT read the story and misrepresented it by posted only the headline.

How does one misrepresent a story by citing the source and quoting it word-for-word?

All I did was point out that it wasn't 'new'. YOU are the one who is bothered by the FACT that what you posted here was NOT accurate.

Nobody said the investigation was new.
I said that the justice department had opened a criminal inquiry into the Russia investigation. This remains 100% accurate.

I am not trying to discredit anyone. In fact, I pointed out, and quoted, the accurate bits in the body of ALL of the articles from the headlines you posted.

1) You don’t get to determine what is accurate. You are a proven liar.

2) Using the word “shifted” or “launched” in the body of an article is not any more or less accurate than saying “opened” in the headline. This is just more silly word games from an Asperger-addled brain.

When people go about and mindlessly repeat Trump's BS, I call them zombies. Get over it already.

Go right ahead. But then don’t complain about people acting childish, using insults, or starting drama. Be consistent.

Late in the race, things had tightened up a bit. When Comey's investigation ended and he let Hillary off, I felt the momentum had shifted to her favor. When he reopened the investigation, I felt everything had deflated and momentum went to Trump.

As far as this forum is concerned, you never once put down the pom-poms for Hillary.
You are engaging in 100% complete revisionist history.
You literally said she could withstand jail and still be the clear 2016 winner.

Prior to all of that, earlier in the race, damn right....I felt that Hillary would destroy him. That is absolutely true.

The only time you expressed doubts about Hillary’s electability is long after she already got her ass trounced.

He shouldn't have to, because it is common sense....and it has nothing to do with "evidence" because collusion and coordination are not crimes.

You don’t even know what you are saying anymore. This is a complete word salad. As mentioned before, while collusion and coordination are not specific terms in federal criminal law, that doesn’t mean Mueller wasn’t looking for evidence of them. He simply applied the framework of conspiracy law.

Correct, and if you read what I said IN CONTEXT, you see that it was in reply to you speaking of when he hired Mueller. Any person with any common sense would know I was talking about the letter that Rosensten wrote when Mueller was hired.
It is a statement of FACT, not an argument. YOU are trying to argue about it.

Doesn’t matter.
Rosenstein used the word “coordination” in the hiring letter. He later used “collude”in another letter further clarifying the scope of the special counsel to Mueller. So your idea that Rosenstein deliberately omitted these non-chargeable crimes from his communications to Mueller is false.

Again, you don't know what drama is....and I'm not going to teach you.

Sounds like something Kevin Spacey would say while trying to passive-aggressively seduce an underage acting student.
Come to think of it, your posts started to really increase around the time Frank Underwood got written out of House of Cards.
Hmmmm.

[RPM]

Monker wrote:
"Again, you don't know what drama is....and I'm not going to teach you."

TNC wrote:
"Sounds like something Kevin Spacey would say while trying to passive-aggressively seduce an underage acting student. Come to think of it, your posts started to really increase around the time Frank Underwood got written out of House of Cards. Hmmmm."

EPIC....!! Please don't stop trying Monker, You seem to enjoy being confused & smacked....

[Aaron]

I'm sure it was my POS computer on my side. It is sukn!

Man, I must be having some computer problems. Posts are not going up. I give. I'm tired of giving thought and it doesn't get posted. Likely a computer problem on my end.

No issues this side....

[Aaron]

And what does that mean? Pretty much what I said but interpret as you wish.

The electoral college was put in place to balance the area of the country vs. big city influence.

This is just NOT TRUE.

From the Federalist Papers of Alexander Hamilton:
https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed68.asp

"It was desirable that the sense of the people should operate in the choice of the person to whom so important a trust was to be confided. This end will be answered by committing the right of making it, not to any preestablished body, but to men chosen by the people for the special purpose, and at the particular conjuncture."

This was written because they considered having congress, or the governors, or other elected people already in office3, choose the President.

"It was equally desirable, that the immediate election should be made by men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station, and acting under circumstances favorable to deliberation, and to a judicious combination of all the reasons and inducements which were proper to govern their choice. A small number of persons, selected by their fellow-citizens from the general mass, will be most likely to possess the information and discernment requisite to such complicated investigations."

What he is describing here is how electors are supposed to be chosen. The intention was for each state to vote for the electors who would then vote for the President. The reason they wanted to do this was because they did not trust the entirety of the population to be adequately informed and qualified to vote for President. We are supposed to be voting for the electors who we feel are most qualified and knowledgeable...NOT because they are guaranteed to vote a specific way.

"It was also peculiarly desirable to afford as little opportunity as possible to tumult and disorder. This evil was not least to be dreaded in the election of a magistrate, who was to have so important an agency in the administration of the government as the President of the United States. But the precautions which have been so happily concerted in the system under consideration, promise an effectual security against this mischief. The choice of SEVERAL, to form an intermediate body of electors, will be much less apt to convulse the community with any extraordinary or violent movements, than the choice of ONE who was himself to be the final object of the public wishes. And as the electors, chosen in each State, are to assemble and vote in the State in which they are chosen, this detached and divided situation will expose them much less to heats and ferments, which might be communicated from them to the people, than if they were all to be convened at one time, in one place."

What he is describing here is they wanted to avoid the stupidity of mob mentality, such as Trump encourages at his rallies with his "locker her up!" and "build the wall" and the rest of it. They wanted a calm and collected small number of state electors to make a rational and informed decision of who should be President.

"Nothing was more to be desired than that every practicable obstacle should be opposed to cabal, intrigue, and corruption. These most deadly adversaries of republican government might naturally have been expected to make their approaches from more than one querter, but chiefly from the desire in foreign powers to gain an improper ascendant in our councils. How could they better gratify this, than by raising a creature of their own to the chief magistracy of the Union? But the convention have guarded against all danger of this sort, with the most provident and judicious attention. They have not made the appointment of the President to depend on any preexisting bodies of men, who might be tampered with beforehand to prostitute their votes; but they have referred it in the first instance to an immediate act of the people of America, to be exerted in the choice of persons for the temporary and sole purpose of making the appointment. And they have excluded from eligibility to this trust, all those who from situation might be suspected of too great devotion to the President in office. No senator, representative, or other person holding a place of trust or profit under the United States, can be of the numbers of the electors. Thus without corrupting the body of the people, the immediate agents in the election will at least enter upon the task free from any sinister bias. Their transient existence, and their detached situation, already taken notice of, afford a satisfactory prospect of their continuing so, to the conclusion of it. The business of corruption, when it is to embrace so considerable a number of men, requires time as well as means. Nor would it be found easy suddenly to embark them, dispersed as they would be over thirteen States, in any combinations founded upon motives, which though they could not properly be denominated corrupt, might yet be of a nature to mislead them from their duty."

They were worried about corruption, especially FOREIGN corruption, influencing and helping to elect a President who would perform his duties for these corrupt groups rather than for the American people. Having electors choose the President avoid this - at least that's what they believed. Seems current events prove that theory wrong.

"All these advantages will happily combine in the plan devised by the convention; which is, that the people of each State shall choose a number of persons as electors, equal to the number of senators and representatives of such State in the national government, who shall assemble within the State, and vote for some fit person as President. Their votes, thus given, are to be transmitted to the seat of the national government, and the person who may happen to have a majority of the whole number of votes will be the President. But as a majority of the votes might not always happen to centre in one man, and as it might be unsafe to permit less than a majority to be conclusive, it is provided that, in such a contingency, the House of Representatives shall select out of the candidates who shall have the five highest number of votes, the man who in their opinion may be best qualified for the office."

Hmmm, didn't read anything about country vs. city or large state vs. small state and all of that. The founders were worried about the ignorance of the masses and the corruption of the Presidency....not the things you list.

"The process of election affords a moral certainty, that the office of President will never fall to the lot of any man who is not in an eminent degree endowed with the requisite qualifications. Talents for low intrigue, and the little arts of popularity, may alone suffice to elevate a man to the first honors in a single State; but it will require other talents, and a different kind of merit, to establish him in the esteem and confidence of the whole Union, or of so considerable a portion of it as would be necessary to make him a successful candidate for the distinguished office of President of the United States. It will not be too strong to say, that there will be a constant probability of seeing the station filled by characters pre-eminent for ability and virtue. And this will be thought no inconsiderable recommendation of the Constitution, by those who are able to estimate the share which the executive in every government must necessarily have in its good or ill administration. Though we cannot acquiesce in the political heresy of the poet who says: "For forms of government let fools contest That which is best administered is best,'' yet we may safely pronounce, that the true test of a good government is its aptitude and tendency to produce a good administration."

They were wrong. The electoral college allowed the most corrupt and dangerous President in our nations history to be elected. It failed to elect a "moral certainty". It failed providing "low intrigue". It failed to elect someone with "requisite qualifications". It failed to elect someone "in the esteem and confidence of the WHOLE UNION". "pre-eminent for ability and virtue" - LOL, Trump has shown an inability to lead the country and it seems he scoffs at virtues. "the true test of a good government is its aptitude and tendency to produce a good administration."...LOL, aptitude? Trump fails at both the administration of government, and having a "good administration", wait five minutes and someone else will be fired or quit.

So, IMO, the electoral college has failed to do its job when it elected Donald Trump. It is antiquated and useless and should be removed.

[Monker]

And what does that mean? Pretty much what I said but interpret as you wish.

Quote any part of it that supports your thought that the founders put in the electoral college to balance country vs. big city.

What you said is flat out NOT TRUE.

I explained EVERY PARAGRAPH that I quoted. You are in obvious denial.

[Monker]

I'm sure it was my POS computer on my side. It is sukn!

Man, I must be having some computer problems. Posts are not going up. I give. I'm tired of giving thought and it doesn't get posted. Likely a computer problem on my end.

No issues this side....

Sometimes when you write a long post it times out and you lose what you write. Try writing it outside of the forum and copy/paste it to post it.

[Monker]

By all means, reply to whoever. But don’t turn around and complain about drama when you are actively seeking it and helping to create it. Your hypocrisy knows no bounds.

It's a public forum and I can do whatever Andrew allows. You have no power over me.

Replying to a public post is not drama. Complaining about it as if you were victimized is.

I can't be held responsible if a 2d cartoon dong inspires you to break your court-ordered house arrest and fire up the shaded window rape van.
Any form of visual communication (.jpg, meme, emoji) does not automatically result in drama.

You don't know what you are talking about...and I'm not going to teach you.

That is not the post that I replied to. All you did was quote a headline that implied that it was a new investigation. It isn't. Then you quoted MORE headlines that implied the same thing.

Correct. Unlike you, I quote actual sources and don’t make up my own facts (ex. “Hillary had permission”).

When I want to prove something as FACT, I do....as the FACT that it is an existing investigation and not a new one.

But, I do not feel the need to post sources for stating my opinion.

I really didn’t think anyone would be pathetic enough to debate the meaning of opened/shifted/launched/transitioned. Yet here we are.

It is NOT a debate. The FACT is that the headline you quoted implied that it was a new investigation. All I said is that is untrue and it was already being investigated. YOU are the one trying to debate a statement of FACT. A FACT that the articles you took the headlines from state.

In many cases, the headline is the most important part of the story. There is nothing incorrect with what I quoted.

It implied a new investigation, it isn't.

Dude, they all do this all the time...write a dramatic headline to get you to read the story. YOU are the one who did NOT read the story and misrepresented it by posted only the headline.

How does one misrepresent a story by citing the source and quoting it word-for-word?

By not reading the story and understanding that it was an existing investigation and posting the headline that implied that it was.

quote="Monker"]All I did was point out that it wasn't 'new'. YOU are the one who is bothered by the FACT that what you posted here was NOT accurate.

Nobody said the investigation was new. [/quote]

The headline you posted and I replied to implied it.

1) You don’t get to determine what is accurate. You are a proven liar.

Dude, the facts prove what is accurate. I am just posting the facts that show the truth.

You lie in almost every post you make. I've called you out on it over and over again and you wisely move on from it and I let it go. You should work on your own truth telling before you start quoting things from me from years ago.

2) Using the word “shifted” or “launched” in the body of an article is not any more or less accurate than saying “opened” in the headline. This is just more silly word games from an Asperger-addled brain.

Saying somebody opened and investigation is completely different than saying an existing investigation has been reclassified as a criminal investigation. This isn't even a debatable topic.

As far as this forum is concerned, you never once put down the pom-poms for Hillary.

Like I said, in almost EVERY post you make, you lie...and the above is a lie.

As I have repeatedly stated, I did not make any of these types of posts in the two weeks prior to the election.

You are engaging in 100% complete revisionist history.

No I am not. I am stating EXACTLY how I felt at the time. It's just not what you want to believe.

You literally said she could withstand jail and still be the clear 2016 winner.

Oh, I am sure I did - but not in the two weeks prior to the election when I thought she may lose.

[

quote="Monker"]
He shouldn't have to, because it is common sense....and it has nothing to do with "evidence" because collusion and coordination are not crimes.

You don’t even know what you are saying anymore. This is a complete word salad.[/quote]

I have been repeating the same thing over and over again. Collusion and coordination are NOT CRIMES.

As mentioned before, while collusion and coordination are not specific terms in federal criminal law,

Correct, they are NOT CRIMES.

that doesn’t mean Mueller wasn’t looking for evidence of them. He simply applied the framework of conspiracy law.

Collusion and coordination can rise to the level of conspiracy. But, THEY DON'T HAVE TO. Collusion, coordination, and conspiracy are THREE DIFFERENT THINGS.

Correct, and if you read what I said IN CONTEXT, you see that it was in reply to you speaking of when he hired Mueller. Any person with any common sense would know I was talking about the letter that Rosensten wrote when Mueller was hired.
It is a statement of FACT, not an argument. YOU are trying to argue about it.

Doesn’t matter.

Sure, context doesn't matter to you. The obvious doesn't matter to you. Capt. Ahab has to hunt his whale.

Rosenstein used the word “coordination” in the hiring letter.

Yeah, which is why I said COLLUSION did not appear in that letter. You had not even brought up coordination at the time I wrote that post.

He later used “collude”in another letter

A letter which I wasn't talking about.

So your idea that Rosenstein deliberately omitted these non-chargeable crimes from his communications to Mueller is false.

And, there is another lie. I never stated any intention...I simply said the word did not exist in the letter, a statement of fact.

Again, you don't know what drama is....and I'm not going to teach you.

Sounds like something Kevin Spacey would say while trying to passive-aggressively seduce an underage acting student.
Come to think of it, your posts started to really increase around the time Frank Underwood got written out of House of Cards.
Hmmmm.

All of these weird fantasies you post say a lot more about you than they do about me.

What you have basically admitted so far: You enjoy watching shows where middle aged men seduce underage women. You have weird fantasies about rape vans. You have a collection of cartoon porn, or at least know where to find it. You obviously objectify women and look at them as "objects" to seduce and/or rape. And, I'm not making stuff up and trying to insult you - this is what you are admitting with YOUR OWN POSTS.

[Monker]

Dude, she's in the bottom tier of candidates. Nobody is listening to what she has to say. Nobody cares what she says because she does not connect well with voters. If something doesn't change, she'll probably be dropping out.

In some polls, she has surpassed "upper tier" candidates like Kamala Harris. Sounds like you would prefer a Biden cakewalk coronation.

Since Kamala's RCP average is online %5.3, leading her in some poll is not impressive. Neither of them are top tier candidates.

She'll be gone after the NH primary...if not a LOT sooner.

So, yes, lashing out in dramatic ways looks to me as if she is desperate to get attention...and it's not working.

Politicians attend rallies and hold press events all the time.

My God dude, I live in Des Moines. Tell me something that I don't experience almost daily.'

When Tulsi does it on Saudi Arabia, (an issue she's been consistent on), you say "she's lashing out."
What BS loaded language.

Yes, I do say she is lashing out in a desperate way. Over a month ago, I was driving somewhere and there were a bunch of Tulsi supporters holding signs and showing support on one of the busier streets here. Over a month ago, she had ads on TV essentially talking about her military service. Nowadays, there is NOTHING. No ads, no supporters holding sings. Nothing. Her campaign is dying.

Yeah, I know...you love the attention.

My Tulsi post wasn't aimed at you. If you are so drama-averse, why are you interjecting yourself into conversations and starting drama?

[/quote]

I am injecting myself because I have an opinion about the subject. It is a public forum. If you want to have a private conversation, consider sending an IM.

I did not say or imply that I was "drama-averse". That is yet another example of you lying.

[Andrew]

What a fucking hypocritical crook this guy is...they all are...

https://www.wsj.com/articles/federal-pr ... 1573837576

[Aaron]

Nope, what is obvious is I don't have enough time in my world to evaluate every word that you type and respond sentence by sentence to your points. I have more important shite going on in my life. Carry on please.

And what does that mean? Pretty much what I said but interpret as you wish.

Quote any part of it that supports your thought that the founders put in the electoral college to balance country vs. big city.

What you said is flat out NOT TRUE.

I explained EVERY PARAGRAPH that I quoted. You are in obvious denial.

[Aaron]

Now we're getting there. On both sides!

What a fucking hypocritical crook this guy is...they all are...

https://www.wsj.com/articles/federal-pr ... 1573837576