Discussion in 'The Red Room' started by El Chup, May 26, 2018.
How are your stores of polonium and nerve agents?
I've got plenty of accuphase and clozapine in the ward meds trolley if they count.
Why do you insist on negating my existence! You scare the everloving fuck out of me with how you so nicely deal with the most amazing bullshit. How the fuck do you not want to kill some of the idiots you have spoken to I will never know, but that sort of amiability terrifies me to the core!
Do they make the voices go away, or just harmonize them? Because I think it would be really cruel to take away people's head friends.
Well, I have multiple black belts myself and no one is afraid of me, either. I see this as a good thing: I hope it makes me less of a target. As an aside dont' you love all the MMA fanboys who say that Aikido is useless because it "doesn't work" in the ring? I have the same laughs over the same types who claim Ninjutsu is fraudulent and made up...etc.
As far as Putin, however limited and embellished his skills are, I don't think that bloke could take him, but then again it is a fact that you never who your fucking with. Which is something I'm constantly reminding my students of.
The whiny toddler just sent another letter to Brad Raffensperger demanding to be declared the winner.
And there are still people who deny he would have tried to hold onto power illegitimately had the result been closer.
@Paladin, @Federal Farmer , @Lanzman ?
When Trump didn't try to hold onto power as predicted, we drag out the hypotheticals ("He would have if..."). I'm not interested in arguing those because they are by their nature unknowable.
And Trump's within the law to request a review of irregularities in the voting. It isn't going to change the outcome.
Did a mob not attack the Capitol building at his behest?
Is he not still trying and failing to claim he is the rightful president?
According to the FBI, no, they did not.
He is within his rights to pursue all legal avenues for the review of voting irregularities.
Yes, they did.
Quite clearly they did.
And we are long past the point where this can really be claimed to be about "irregularities", let's not be silly.
'Member when Al Gore pursued his legal rights, Repubs were like "give it up, sore loser!! Sore Loserman! Boo!!".
We're genuinely getting near to the point of him standing outside the WH stamping his feet demanding to be let back in.
No, they didn't. You're peddling a disproven narrative. The protesters involved were pro-Trump and were supporting him at the protest, but you said the attack was at his behest. There is ZERO evidence to back up that claim.
He's not President anymore.
No, he is not.
Because there were not only no irregularities but no reasonable grounds to suspect them.
His inciting an attack has not, however, been disproven. It has been deemed to lack sufficient evidence to make charges worth pressing. There's a difference and we've all seen the footage.
When you tell a few thousand angry people to go to a place, right now, and "fight like hell" it's quite clear what the expected outcome is.
Plenty of grounds to suspect that allegation.
Say the rest of it.
*Points at list with gun*
-and his spray-tan was ugly
-and his hair was ridiculous.
-and he learned everything about politics from wrestling.
-and I'm a little girl named Sally.
(angry Randy Marsh voice) Reeeeaaadd iiiitt!!
I didn’t vote for Trump so I don’t know why you’re tagging me with this hypothetical question.
You're a little girl named Sally.
Seriously, just shut the hell up.
The uncounted ballots in @Diacanu's shed say otherwise.
You voted 6,437 times in fact.
Me either. I’ve been nothing but critical of the orange moron since he won the Republican primaries.
You are as fair and balanced as fox news.
Hey, Lanzman has been very fair and consistent in saying that Trump would be terrible but no worse than Hillary.
There is certainly evidence that at least some of the protesters thought they were doing Trump's bidding, straight out of the mouths of the protesters (or their attorneys) themselves.
So at lest some of the rioters thought they were rioting at his behest. That's not a disproven narrative with zero evidence to support it.
Now one could argue that Trump didn't actually intend for people to riot, or that once they did riot that he took reasonable action to stop them.
I think what has been reported makes those prospects unlikely. The notion that Trump did not have the slightest intention that people would stop the process he's still calling illegitimate 8 months later seems a stretch. The reporting about what he was doing during the attack makes it sound like he was getting a kick out of the rioting. And his public-facing actions include him taking a relatively long time to put the message out and soft-pedaling it by telling the rioters that "we love you."
Yeah, totally sorry that they’re both awful people. Sorry that those two shitstains were apparently the “best” we could do in 2016. But not to worry, I’m sure it will all be fixed in 2024.
Separate names with a comma.