MovieChat Forums > Donald Trump Discussion > Bill Maher revives push to remove Biden ...

Bill Maher revives push to remove Biden from ticket: Only debating Trump because he 'knows he's losing'

posted 16 days ago by BKB (6716)
176 replies | jump to latest

https://www.foxnews.com/media/bill-maher-revives-push-remove-biden-ticket-only-debating-trump-because-knows-losing

"I feel like we have turned a corner though," Maher later said. "Like after the last election, it was ‘Trump is finished.’ And then a year later was 'Well, he's not going away.' And then it was ‘Uh oh, he could win again.’ And now it seems like the consensus is almost Biden can't win. And he is losing in all the swing states I think except Wisconsin and by bigger and bigger numbers."

[–] BKB (6716) 16 days ago

Maher and the rest who continue to scream blue bloody murder about the impending apocalypse if Trump is reelected failed to explain exactly how things will fall apart. As I recall, under Trump we were not in any wars, our borders were secure, we were virtually energy independent, inflation was low, unemployment low, gas prices low and some semblance of law and order. So what exactly am I missing. Biden has committed every offense and more that they accuse Trump of committing. What exactly, specifically are they so afraid of? 🤔

[–] AnagramYYZ (482) 16 days ago

Republicans are not the party of public service, they are a cadre of corporatist laissez-faire enthusiasts. Depending on the trajectory of the economy, sometimes it’s good to cut taxes, spending and regulation, but not always! For a few years after the the Obama economy brought prosperity, there was no harm in having GOP control. 2017-2019 was fairly smooth sailing since the federal infrastructure was in place and tended well since 2009. However, under Trump, who declared war on a mythical government “swamp,” emphasized personal loyalty, fired his cabinet and chiefs-of-staff, things began to sour. The so-called “Deep State,” which are essentially career public servants—most unelected, sure—but they began to show their value in dramatic ways. With their diminished influence, things began to fall apart very similarly to how George W. Bush was also a failure. The pandemic proved that these supposedly evil “bureaucrats” held tremendous importance and needed their voices heard in the West Wing, particularly someone like Fauci.

You see, Republicans not only do not enforce regulations on the private sector, but they have the same philosophy on government departments. Experts like Fauci (or under Bush, the head of FEMA during Katrina & Richard Clarke, the counterterrorism czar who was running around with his “hair on fire” screaming about al Qaeda attacks before and after 9/11) are ignored and sidelined. Then, tragedy strikes. There will always be the unexpected.

To continue to vote for GOP as they become more extreme is reckless, and the majority of the American electorate realize this. That is why Biden will win reelection soundly, particularly after the debates, conventions, and Trump convictions. I believe Biden will also receive fairly broad Republican support and endorsement among high profile figures, who will likely speak at the DNC in Chicago.

Cheers 🍻 and 4 more years!

[–] BKB (6716) 16 days ago

You're a fucking moron and if you vote 4 more years of this man, you deserve what you get going forward you fucking pinhead.. How on earth could you possibly agree with men using female restrooms and female locker rooms which is what Biden signed off on in updating Title IX??

[–] AnagramYYZ (482) 15 days ago

What a level-headed and mature response, dittohead. /sarcasm

Your impression of your favored blowhard leader is uncanny. Imagine speaking this way to task-oriented agency folks doing their job, and actually expecting glowing results and teamwork.

You are too focused on what these candidates do to bring out voters, some marginalized, and not enough about the actual work they strive for in the halls of power.

Nobody with any common sense cares about “wokeness” or tranny talking points or even abortion. These are wedge issues to manipulate voter turnout. They effect small instances of people, but get engagement in the mainstream media for their absurdity. Focus on the results and the policy.

Joseph R Biden is a wise old man with tons of life experience and charisma who has shepherded the Fed gov’t in uncanny ways. His knowledge from his time in Congress as well has been extremely beneficial. His personal relationship with world leaders of other countries has done wonders for our diplomatic status.

There are many challenges overseas right now. Do you really want to turn that nonsense over to someone like Trump? He’ll just help Bibi Nentanyahu commit genocide, and then carve up Ukraine and the Baltic States to appease Putin, as Neville Chamberlain in the U.K. did with Hitler prior to Winston Churchill coming along.

Drumpf is orange and weak. He gave the presidential medal of freedom to sack-of-shit, Rush Limbaugh, who promptly expired due to the stench of degeneracy and corruption. #45 thinks the American military, intelligence and law enforcement service personnel are “suckers” and “losers.” He would never invite them to his country club for tea and crumpets. They wouldn’t be pleased as he sells stolen classified secrets to our enemies, and the golden toilets at Mar-o-Lago will not help to distract and disguise his malfeasance.

Most unAmerican man to ever hold power, DJT is. He *will* serve time.

*Biden/Harris 2024*

Signed,

U.S. Navy Veteran ‘05-‘09
Sonar Technician 2nd Class
Global War on Terrorism campaign

“Always remember the U.S.S. Cole”

[–] BKB (6716) 15 days ago

That's why he's winning in swing states and in CNN Polls dumbass and sorry but anyone can post someone else's military credentials Gen Z.. 🤣 What?? Did you actually think I'd buy into that shit??

[–] BKB (6716) 15 days ago

Just remember folks: It is not how many people cast votes, it is who counts the votes that matter.

[–] AnagramYYZ (482) 15 days ago

BUMP

[–] AnagramYYZ (482) 15 days ago

Yeah, the polling of people who are willing to respond to landline robocalls surveys?! I’m sure those are accurate.

Democrats, centrist Independents and sane Republicans who are sick of your nonsense are going to be happy to form a bipartisan coalition in favor of Biden. Unfortunately, they are too busy working right now to actually penetrate the bubble of the scabs who have time to post thousands of times on Moviechat and elsewhere. They are the silent majority.

The election season has just started. Please be patient, and be gracious this time in defeat.

Nobody ever taught MAGA deplorables good sportsmanship skills. Sad. Gen Z are upstanding and smart, God bless them. They will turn out for Biden.

Oh, and yes, I’m sure it’s really necessary to lie about being a Sonar Technician. You see conspiracy everywhere, Mr. QAnon

[–] tvfan (9300) 15 days ago

Biden is loosing many of those Gen Z due to their disapproval of the Israel/Palestine conflict.
Some of them are actually awakening from the bullshit.

[–] AnagramYYZ (482) 14 days ago

An “uncommitted” protest vote during the primaries is nothing out of the ordinary as a maneuver to hold the president’s feet to the fire over some international conflict. I’d only be worried, as a Democrat, if many were rallying around an alternate choice like Dean Phillips or RFK, jr. The Kennedy family, in fact, even endorses Joe Biden over their relative.

Gen Z, and most everyone in the rational suburbs of America, in fact, will vote for Biden when the time comes. Most will vote by mail like last time so they don’t have to stand in line with MAGA freaks.

Why would someone who is sensitive to the Palestinians vote Trump?! He will just collude with Netanyahu to commit further genocide in Gaza.

A *real* supporter of Israel knows that their leader’s rash actions there has been unpopular and unrepresentative of a peaceful and faithful population. This is why Jews everywhere are some of the strictest opponents of the actions.

[–] tvfan (9300) 14 days ago

Most will vote by mail like last time

By using duplicate and triplicate ballots with massive harvesting like last time?! Shocker

He will just collude with Netanyahu to commit further genocide in Gaza.

If that were the case, Bibi would have invaded Gaza while Trump was in office, he had four years, but he didn’t.

[–] AnagramYYZ (482) 10 days ago

You must not be aware of the Hamas attacks of October 7, 2023.

With Israel’s population being compared to the U.S…. that day for them would be the equivalent of fifteen times the terrorism impact of 9/11. It changed things.

Nentanyahu had no prerogative to choose brutal war in Gaza during the Trump years, because Hamas hadn’t planned attacks then.

Terrorism needs to be dealt with swiftly and decisively, but Israel’s strategy (which Trump will kowtow to) will further destabilize the Middle East—to say nothing of the humanitarian issue of a genocidial policy.

We already learned all these lessons in our own response to 9/11.

Right-wingers never seem to understand the concept of cause-and-effect and the role of American leadership in the world.

When voters hear Trump & Biden debate about foreign policy, it will be clear how irrational and hypocritical Trump will be. Mark my words, he will call for a stoppage of aid to Ukraine, but then speak glowingly of the Israeli actions. The votes of the protesters are insignificant to him, and in the absence of that, the conscientious Left will not hesitate to run home to reelect Biden.

Not that alt-Right MAGA has a chance to begin with. The polls are flawed… the demographics have shifted… the suburbs are Blue and they give no quarter for such a backwards narcissistic miscreant.

[–] Marty1968 (299) 11 days ago

If true he only served four years, probably enough time to transition from a fah🐐 to a wahmen … on the taxpayers dime

[–] Information-Police (4277) 6 days ago

In recent years, all the polls in swing states have been off of elections results with democrats doing 4 to 6 points better than polling with Trump pushing for candidates he endorsed. Let's see what happens in November.

[–] Yatzo (1446) 15 days ago

Fantastic post - thank you
But the MAGA morons are impenetrable.

[–] AnagramYYZ (482) 15 days ago

Thanks. It's true... I don't expect to convert them. If I could persuade even one swing state voter losing morale or who's confused about all the noise, then a post or two is worth the trouble. I'm sure there are plenty of lurkers here.

[–] tvfan (9300) 15 days ago

Wow, an entire wall of ranting with zero substance. Shocker

[–] Egosomnia (794) 14 days ago

"Joseph R Biden is a wise old man with tons of life experience and charisma who has shepherded the Fed gov’t in uncanny ways. His knowledge from his time in Congress as well has been extremely beneficial. His personal relationship with world leaders of other countries has done wonders for our diplomatic status."

HAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!! Whoo, (wipes eyes), Thanks, I needed that..

[–] Ranb (7688) 14 days ago

How could you possibly agree with a man inspecting female locker rooms while the girls are undressing? Trump thinks that is part of what makes him so adorable to the MAGA.

https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/kendalltaggart/teen-beauty-queens-say-trump-walked-in-on-them-changing

[–] Information-Police (4277) 6 days ago

So you want trans girls, who look like girls and act like girls, to use the boys restrooms and locker rooms?

[–] BKB (6716) 6 days ago

They're not biological, so No.. Use the Unisex restroom but keep your ass out of the female restroom if you're a Male and please, spare me this "I choose to identify with whatever sex I choose" bullshit

[–] Information-Police (4277) 6 days ago

"They're not biological"

They certainly aren't androids, so WTF are you talking about!

[–] BKB (6716) 5 days ago

Males simply don't belong in the Goddamn female restroom!! Are you seriously going to put up a fucking argument with me over this, from someone who's 58 and was raised that males don't do this?? That they have their own restroom to use?? 🙄 Seriously, I get you hate Trump for whatever Reason or another, but this is absurd you feel this sort of behavior is acceptable??

[–] Information-Police (4277) 5 days ago

I am talking about trans women who look like young women, have female figures and feminine appearance and look everything like a beautiful young woman. You want them to use the men's bathrooms and locker rooms? You are the creepy one.

[–] BKB (6716) 5 days ago

They're still male, regardless of what they choose to identify as, they don't belong in the female restroom which is why they made the Unisex Restrooms for this very problem

[–] Information-Police (4277) 5 days ago

"They're still male, regardless of what they choose to identify as."

You could look at it that way. Or you could look it as what is the harm of a person like I described using the woman's room vs their using the men's room?

Not all places have unisex restrooms.

[–] BKB (6716) 5 days ago

Dude, do me a favor?? Shut the fuck up?? Got it?? Good because you're not going to make an argument in favor of a male posing as a female to use their facilities including restroom and fitness center locker room so again, Fuck off with your liberal drivel.. 🙄

[–] Information-Police (4277) 4 days ago

You can't deal with the very real situation I raise so you want me to shut up.
You are an intellectual coward.

[–] BKB (6716) 4 days ago

And you're an obsessed moron who goes on and on about how Trump's evil and all of this shit and can't bare the fact that the man draws rock concert levels in his Rallies while Biden simply draws flies

[–] Information-Police (4277) 4 days ago

Like this "massive crowd"?

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13457573/Aerial-shot-Trumps-rally-Bronx-reveals-true-size-crowd-campaign-claimed-25-000-New-Yorkers-left-waiting-outside.html

I've seen free concerts by has-been rock acts at the town shopping center with bigger crowds.

I've never been impressed by crowd size at rallies. I pay attention to what is actually happening, policies. I like actual plans not Trump platitudes.

Would you really go to one of Trump's rallies to hear him whine about being treated unfairly while he has the whole US justice system bending over backwards to give him more leeway than anyone ever indicted for crimes in our history! Oh, he compared himself to Mother Theresa! I bet you creamed in your shorts to that.

[–] BKB (6716) 4 days ago

It's certainly larger than anything Biden could muster up in a Rally.. Next thing you know, you'll be posting pictures of Biden's Rallies with A.I making subtle changes like how small the crowds are

[–] Information-Police (4277) 4 days ago

I know you Magas think that rally sizes mean more than actual votes cast, but they don't.

Biden is busy running the country and the rest of the free world. He makes public appearances to announce policies that are helping Americans and the American economy, not to whine about not being treated well. It gets covered because he is important, not because he is an amusing clown, like Trump. He doesn't resort to comparing himself to Mother Theresa to get attention.

There's an old saying about people who can't get anyone to pay attention to them: "He can't get arrested in this town." Well, Trump has that base covered, lol.

[–] BKB (6716) 4 days ago

Oh Good grief.. 🙄

[–] Information-Police (4277) 4 days ago

He is now officially a felon.

[–] BKB (6716) 4 days ago

And he now officially wins in November

[–] Information-Police (4277) 4 days ago

Today was the first time he ever won a popular vote, lol

[–] Corbell (9187) 15 days ago

Falci, who gave money to the chinese to build the covid virus? You're holding him up as a POSTIVE ROLE MODEL?

[–] AnagramYYZ (482) 15 days ago

Do you want to discuss this, or are you just here to lob hand grenades while forgetting to pull the pins?

https://www.bbc.com/news/57932699

Liberals don't look for public figures for "role models" as we are well-adjusted. I just want experts and a functioning well-oiled machine in government.

The Republican candidate for president in 2024 has always been a poor role model for children and other sheep. He has 91 felony charges, and slept with a whore while his third wife was nursing his infant son.

[–] Corbell (9187) 15 days ago

Your link verifies that US money, was directed to the Chinese lab to research the virus.

Even if you have policy reasons to support that, a sane person would admit that that was a massive failure.

Agree or disagree?

[–] AnagramYYZ (482) 15 days ago

The link verifies that it wasn't to manufacture the COVID-19 virus, which I'm sure was the implication that you wanted to leave to readers. Funding is provided all over the world, and to us as well, for myriad of reasons, and as long as America avoids isolationism then we will benefit from the bearing of fruit of research in many cases. Not everyone has nefarious motives, but you don't know that because you have inverted TDS. Trump tries to bring everyone down to his level.

Perhaps a portion... no, a fraction of it, shouldn't have gone to Wuhan Health Institute... I don't know? That is a question for experts. I can assure you of one thing, though. It happened during Trump's presidency and he sure as shit didn’t know or care anything about it. Anyone really think he was familiar with Fauci until his handlers decided maybe we should put this nerd on television since our boss is suggesting to infected voters to drink disinfectant bleach?!
'
Again, it goes back to my original point. The Deep State has value. The GOP don't want us to think that because it equates to a gain or boost of the perception of worthiness for workers and unions—to them, it’s the boss, rather, who always gets the credit and prestige while the employee is thrown under the bus. Fuck that noise.

Power to the People!
Vote Blue

[–] tvfan (9300) 15 days ago

suggesting to infected voters to drink disinfectant bleach

He was referring to chlorine dioxide.

[–] AnagramYYZ (482) 14 days ago

BUMPITY BUMP 4 BLEACH 🤣

[–] Corbell (9187) 15 days ago

1. The link verifies that money was going from us taxpayers to a chinese lab for research.

2. We might benefit from the advance in science from such research. We will NOT get the benefits of the jobs or infrastructure HERE IN OUR COUNTRY, employing AMERICANS.

3. I said nothing of motives.

4. The Deep State has value. In this case their actions blew up in our faces. You do admit that, right?

5 Give me your favorite example of the Deep State doing well, to support your support of them.

6. I want public policy to be the domain of our elected representatives, so that we can hold them accoutable for that. I want the Deep State purged.

[–] Information-Police (4277) 6 days ago

5 Give me your favorite example of the Deep State doing well, to support your support of them

The Deep State prevented Trump from having US troops fire upon peaceful protestors.

[–] Corbell (9187) 6 days ago

Sorry, I'm not sure what you are referring to. Need more details. Or a link.

[–] Information-Police (4277) 6 days ago

Pick your source

https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=trump+wanted+to+shoot+protestors

[–] Corbell (9187) 6 days ago

Ah, thought I might have missed something. Good.

The floyd riots were anything but "peaceful".

They were violent, and murderous, led by want a be marxist revolutionaries.

Especially if you look at the riots in Seatle where the local police were order to not help protect federal buildings?

It was a completely reasonable question. And a completely reasonable option to consider.

Indeed, the Seatle riots especially, where they attacked the federal buildings, and the local mayor was on the side of the mob? I am surprised that there was not a point where the mob was not suppressed with deadly force.

[–] Information-Police (4277) 6 days ago

This wasn't in Seattle. It was a peaceful protest 2,747 miles away from Seattle in Washington, DC.

https://www.google.com/maps/dir/Washington,+District+of+Columbia/Seattle,+WA/@41.9057779,-97.2358095,3.87z/data=!4m14!4m13!1m5!1m1!1s0x89b7c6de5af6e45b:0xc2524522d4885d2a!2m2!1d-77.0368707!2d38.9071923!1m5!1m1!1s0x5490102c93e83355:0x102565466944d59a!2m2!1d-122.3328481!2d47.6061389!3e0?entry=ttu

But, you support the President of the United States calling in the military to shoot protesting Americans?

[–] Corbell (9187) 6 days ago

I went to your link and hit the top selection, it was about seattle.

Are you talking about the blm riot where they attacked the white house and set fire to a church?

That would be another riot that, IMO, asking about shooting the rioters was a completely reasonable question.

Indeed, I kind of think it might have been a good idea.

Why are we coddling violent rioters?

[–] Information-Police (4277) 5 days ago

The protestors did not attack the White House. A fire was set in a store room in a historic church that did little to no damage. Nobody knows who set the fire.

Why do you want to violate US law and use the military to shoot people who have not even been proven to be doing anything destructive. Why would you even want to do that to people who were doing destructive things?

You probably want to coddle the people who broke into the Capitol, caused a lot of damage and bodily injury to police officers in their attempt to hunt down and kill members of Congress. Do you think the US military should have been brought in to open fire upon them?

[–] Corbell (9187) 5 days ago

Oh, so the fire that the peaceful protests set to the CHURCH, didn't spread and burn the place down,

Soooo, that makes it ok?

Interesting take.

What do you mean that hte rioters did not attack the white house? My understanding is that Trump had to be moved to a safe room and I recall leftards were gloating about that.

Sounds like rioters attacking the white house to me.

Are you referring to something like, "they were prevented from reaching the white house walls, so... that doesn't count" or some such bullshit?

[–] tvfan (9300) 15 days ago

Fact: Fauci lied under oath, and he funded the research via gain-of-function.

Fact: Liberals literally worship all types as role models, that's why they are brainwashed by wokeness, the climate hoax, feminism, fake science and their favorite celebrities.

[–] AnagramYYZ (482) 15 days ago

Liberals tend to appreciate Entertainment and the Arts, which includes celebrities, but we don't nominate these same celebrities for high political office. Can you say the same? Are you going to try to convince us that you *didn't* punch the ballot next to the name of a reality show Wrestlemania "apprentice" in clown makeup twice? And over a woman, no less, who already lived and worked in the White House for 8 years, was Senator on 9/11 and Secretary of State when Seal Team Six killed the most wanted terrorist on the planet?!

No wonder you're hiding out on obscure message board.

[–] tvfan (9300) 15 days ago

He proved himself via all his policies. We had the best administration in decades until your overlords destroyed it with the plandemic. You can't say the same about your idols Obama and Biden.

[–] Corbell (9187) 15 days ago

Trump's name recognition got him a listen in hte beginning,

but it was his very astutely crafted platform of POLICIES that drove his rise in the polls.

I'm glad that the GOP choose it's candidate based on ideas and gave even a vulgar casino owner a chance to competet in the contest of ideas and judged him based on his ideas.

It's weird that a DEMOCRAT, would attack a man based on his relatively humble origins.

[–] AnagramYYZ (482) 10 days ago

His ideas are non-existent. He ran on slick marketing, demagoguery, foreign interference, and sexism. He wasn’t even expecting to win. He was probably planning to foster his brand of cable news propaganda or social media in defeat. He used the office to further enrich himself and his properties while serving! Just like some two-bit Venezuelan drug cartel kingpin with a slush fund syphoning the resources of a nation after a military coup.

Unfortunately for him, a jury of his peers who were Americans patriots decided those millions should go to E. Jean Carroll, a woman he raped in a department store dressing room, instead.

The party of “family values,” right?

As for humble origins… you can’t be serious. I literally can’t think of another 20th or 21st century leader with a more prominent status other than George W. Bush after his father already served as President & Vice President.

He had skyscrapers with his name on them.

I was obviously referring to experience, patience, networking and interpersonal skills, book-learning, common sense and intelligence.

This is for the Presidency. Not sports entertainment for kids.

“Little Marco”
“Crooked Hillary”
“Low Energy Jeb”
“Lyin’ Cruz”

Absurd. And his grasp on foreign policy was barely better than Sarah Palin’s.

[–] Corbell (9187) 10 days ago

1. His serious policy ideas dominated the 2016 primaries, specifically those on immigration and trade. Your denial of this is... not good. If you are serious, i strongly recommend doing some reading on that period of time, perhaps skim some weekly news magazines to get a feel for how things went. Because you are coming across as... insanely ignorant otherwise.

2. "Humble" as in not part of the existing power structure, compared to HILLARY, who... as you said, had ALREADY LIVED IN TEH WHITE HOUSE. Clearly I'm not claiming a rags to riches story.

3. Politics make strange bedfellows. I've known plenty of pro-life dems who vote for politicians that support abortion, so the fact that the religious right supports a twice divorced man who owns casinos, is... worthy of note, but... dude, it's normal. Give it a rest. Your attempt to pretend that it is...somehow wrong is just you not happy that your enemies are being effective. And that's lame.

[–] AnagramYYZ (482) 10 days ago

His policy ideas were just standard Republican talking points with a simplistic, juvenile and politically incorrect spin.

I did say he won on good marketability with slogans like “Build the Wall and Mexico will pay for it” and “Lock her up” for her emails, etc.

Hillary Clinton was of more humble origins, which hardly matters because we saw how she was qualified. Still, she worked her way up through various roles exactly as we should expect for a presidential nominee. She didn't start at the top. Imagine giving an entry-level government servant the job of the Presidency. He even opined after less than a year in that it "was harder than I thought." Well, no shit, Don.

You talk about varying Republican platforms... acting like what they say actually matters. The buffoon did nothing but lie. Everything he ever said was the total reverse and projected nonsense, especially when he called an opponent, "crooked." And Ross Perot's old Reform Party platform was crazy-talk then, and it was crazy talk in 2016. If Trump can make his MAGA hats in China for greater profits, then he'll do so. Their true policy goals are, like Grover Norquist affectionately put it, to "drown the federal government in the bathtub." You're talking like the GOP debates should matter to any liberal. They don't. Liberals would have supported John Kasich of the pack, if necessary, but still voted for Hillary or Bernie. Kasich, however, would have been a successful Executive and united the country. Compromise is the name of the game, and Trump was a failure because he could never get it. Even talking heads on Fox hated him, after they get done praising him on a Murdoch/Ailes-dictated commentary show. Trump's handpicked Secretary of State called him a "fuckin' moron."

His voters are simply Anti-Establishment, of which that sentiment prospered that year. After a worldwide pandemic, that phase is over, and only the “name recognition” remains for low information and superficial voters.

You're so full of shit in posts above and below this one, if any. We can all see your hypocrisy. Imagine what the common GOP voter would say if, like, Obama had fired his whole cabinet and chiefs-of-staff like Trump did. They would commence with the lynch-mob. Imagine if Biden was photographed with Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell.

You must be so fuckin' embarrassed.

EDIT: Whatever you said below is garbage "dude"... and I already fixed my typo.

[–] Corbell (9187) 10 days ago

No, they weren't. His Trade policy was a complete reversal of the FREE TRADE IDEOLOGY, that the republicans leadership has been wedded to for decades.

AND, while the Border Security issue was something republicans had given lip service to, he was much stronger on it, and got the perception that he was... more... hard core.

This was in the republican primaries. IF you are a hard core lefty or... young it is reasonable that you might not have paid much attention.

But, you are doing a disservice to YOURSELF if you do not educate youself on this. EVen if just in a "know your enemy" way of thinking.

Dude. I was not calling hillary humble. My point was based on teh exact opposite. READ IT AGAIN. If you don't get that, ask some questions.

"Simply anti-Establishment"? Man, way to just dismiss other points of view. lol.

[–] Grifterhunter (834) 10 days ago

Correct it does target drug users and drug dealers. But... If that is true why is it people with money tend to evade laws of drug abuse or it affecting their lives legally? Drug use is quite common especially among celebrity circles. It's not me believing it impacts poor people it's an objective fact it impacts them worse. Poor people have had their lives destroyed for just smoking pot. Remember the drug war is against that also.

Sure they do! They openly oppose folks getting welfare and oppose healthcare being universal. Rather than tax it they would rather it be privatized. Therefore either you pay up or die. Therefore if you don't have the money tough shit. The right is all about protecting insurance corporations over the average person.

Your other bullshit is shit talk. The drug war and healthcare positions by the right price my point beautifully. Go ahead try and dispute them bitch.

[–] Corbell (9187) 10 days ago

That drug users with money take steps to protect themselves is not part of the intent of those that support hte drug war policy.

Meanwhile the anti-white racism of the left is spread thoughout their policies and ideology and speech and ideas, and ect. ect. ect.

So.... you're wrong.

[–] Grifterhunter (834) 10 days ago

What steps are taken by people with money? Your theory also doesn't hold up because even when the rich are caught they get off with a slap on the wrist. So no it's because they have money.

Yep and you bypassed healthcare. Meanwhile the republicans only want rich people to get good healthcare.

So... You are wrong.

[–] Corbell (9187) 9 days ago

What steps? LOL. Hiring good lawyers for one. Dumbass.

MMM, no. You are. My point about the racism and the sexism of the Left aligning with the hate I linked to, makes sense.

[–] Grifterhunter (834) 9 days ago

And what gets you better lawyers? Money you dipshit!

Nope you are wrong. The point stands the republicans only wasn't good healthcare for the rich. They are targeting yr poor and have hatred for them.

[–] Corbell (9187) 9 days ago

1. Which does nothing to support your... weird smear of those that support hte drug war.

2. You are projecting YOUR opinion on nationalized healthcare onto people that you know disagree with you. That's just you being a shit talker. Go fuck yourself.

[–] Grifterhunter (834) 8 days ago

Um yeah it does! My original pony was insane the right dislikes poor people. The drug war affects poor people way worse than rich people. So no you are wrong like usual.

The pony stands the right only wants rich people to have good healthcare.

[–] BKB (6716) 8 days ago

You need to seek therapy.. You are simply too obsessed with Trump

[–] Corbell (9187) 8 days ago

Though the defensive actions of the accused rich, not though any action or intent by those that support the drug war.

And you were citing the drug war, and your analysis of it, to support your claim that the RIght hates the poor.

So, it doesn't support your point.

THat bit, where you whine like a fag and jump around until you confusee the issue to the point that you try to change the topic so that you can pretend to have made a point, instead of admitting that your real point was shit talk?

That is you being troll boi fag.

[–] Grifterhunter (834) 8 days ago

Nope wrong. My point stands. The drug war affects poor people way worse than it does rich people. This is consistent with the right hating the poor and wanting them to do badly.

No jumping around. The right only wants good healthcare for the rich. So thus my pony stands the right hates the poor. You got schooled today.

[–] Corbell (9187) 8 days ago

You just ignored my counter point.

Which is common behaviour for you.

I know it is because you know my counter point is true, but you are too much of a piece of shit to admit it.

[–] Grifterhunter (834) 8 days ago

Lol like how you ignored my point about healthcare? Two can play that game bozo. You ignored my point about healthcare because deep down you know I'm right. Also your counterpoint doesn't dispute anything it's bullshit.

[–] Corbell (9187) 8 days ago

Dude. You just keep throwing more and more shit at the wall, while ignoring real discussion.

So, fuck you.

[–] Grifterhunter (834) 8 days ago

No you just ignore things once I prove you wrong. You are a true prick.

[–] Corbell (9187) 8 days ago

LOL. You presentt YOUR INTERPRETATION of policies and YOUR JUDGEMENTS and then ASSIGN THEM to people you KNOW disagree with you, and then judge them as though they AGREE with you.

It's delusional. And you it takes an asshole to do it even then.

It is common in hard core leftards.

[–] Grifterhunter (834) 8 days ago

There is nothing logical about supporting the drug war. We have data showcasing the harm it causes to society. Those who support it have some kind of agenda. I don't buy that it's done with good intentions. I think an agenda is afoot. You think this anytime a policy you don't like is supported by the left. Yet hate it when it's done back to you? Logically explain to me why the drug war is good. I'm listening.

[–] Corbell (9187) 8 days ago

I understand your position.

I disagree with it.

You don't get to pretend I AGREE with it, and judge me based on that.

Doing so is insanely illogical OF YOU.

[–] Grifterhunter (834) 8 days ago

And you did nothing to support your assertion. Go ahead and logically breakdown why the drug war is good. I have logically broke down how the drug war destroys lives and affects poor people the most. You disagree, so let's hear your reasons.

[–] Corbell (9187) 8 days ago

You are talking in shit circles now.

We covered all of that. You are ignoring sht we talked about for weeks.

[–] Grifterhunter (834) 8 days ago

You attempted to break down why it was good. I dismantled it. The point stands the drug war is a failure.

[–] Corbell (9187) 7 days ago

Do you even know what a logical fallacy is?

[–] Grifterhunter (834) 7 days ago

Quite well. Do you?

[–] Corbell (9187) 6 days ago

Do you realize that all you are doing is spamming a Logical Fallacy of Proof by Assertion?

[–] Grifterhunter (834) 6 days ago

You don't know what a fallacy is.

[–] Corbell (9187) 6 days ago

https://search.yahoo.com/search?fr=mcafee&type=E210US739G0&p=definition+logical+fallacy

A logical fallacy is an argument that may sound convincing or true but is actually flawed. Logical fallacies are leaps of logic that lead us to an unsupported conclusion. People may commit a logical fallacy unintentionally, due to poor reasoning, or intentionally, in order to manipulate others.

[–] Grifterhunter (834) 6 days ago

Wait though is the dictionary valid? Remember you dismiss the dictionary when I brought it up before.

[–] Corbell (9187) 6 days ago

Certainly some leftardss have infiltrated some dictionaries and corrupted them like they do everything.

That definition looks good to me though. YOu claim to know the defintion.

Do you want to accept that defiintion, or challenge it, or just talk shit?

[–] Grifterhunter (834) 6 days ago

I need to establish what the measuring stick is. So it has to be approved by you in order for the dictionary to be valid?

[–] Corbell (9187) 6 days ago

Fag, I asked your opinion, ready to discuss it.

You are stalling becasue you know that your current argument is a logical fallacy.

[–] Grifterhunter (834) 6 days ago

No I'm about to disprove you by your logic. I just want to be clear. So do we get to decide the dictionary definition based on if we like it? If that's the case I don't like that definition therefore it's invalid. You know this logic is dumb. You also know that if you concede to the dictionary you will lose many points you have made. If you get to omit a definition based on whether you like it or not then I get to do the same thing. How do you like them apples bitch?

[–] Corbell (9187) 6 days ago

It is not about "if we like it".

You are misrepresenting my prevous complaint. It was not that I did not "LIKE" the definiton, it was that it has been changed to be a FALSE definition, for political reasons.

That is a real thing that happened. You want to ignore it.

THIS definition seems to be fine. It describes the word accurately adn usefully.

You are trying to change the subject, becasue you don't want to discuss how your previous argument was nothing but a logical fallacy, specifically the logical fallacy of Proof by Assertion.

[–] Grifterhunter (834) 6 days ago

I don't buy your horse shit! It was in the dictionary and that overrides you. Either we go by it or we don't. If you get to omit definitions you dislike than I can do the same. Period!

[–] Corbell (9187) 6 days ago

Your pretense that a dictionary can't be changed by a leftard like yourself, is just you playing retard.

Your demand that we accept all dictionary defintions without thought, like mindless leftards, or reject them all, is just you talking shit.

The bit where you say "period", like you are in a position to dictate to me,

is just you having a hissy fit.

Try to be less of a pussy.

[–] Grifterhunter (834) 6 days ago

See I love this. If you don't like the definition it's changed by leftards. If it's one you like it's fine. Okay two can play this game. If they can change it then so can conservatives. How do I know a conservative didn't change that definition?

Oh I'm in a position to dictate you. Notice you don't tell anyone to kill themselves anymore? I was happy to be here to straighten you out.

[–] Corbell (9187) 6 days ago

All this right now, is you having a hissy fit to try to distract from the fact that your previous argument was the logical fallacy of Proof By Assertion.

Most, if not all of your argments are illogical messes.

You know that, which is why you started this little hissy fit.

Your emotional drama is nothing but an act, to hide behind.

[–] Grifterhunter (834) 6 days ago

No I just saw through your bullshit. Either the dictionary is valid or it isn't. If it's valid then you were wrong about what woke meant. Actually you know woke was in the dictionary in the 60s and has the same meaning? So when did the leftards change? What year?

[–] Corbell (9187) 6 days ago

Nope. Sometimes a dictionary can be wrong, that does not mean that we can never use a dictionary again.

That you pretend otherwise, is just you gaslighting.

[–] Grifterhunter (834) 6 days ago

Lol yeah I'm not buying that. The dictionary overrides you buddy sorry. I trust that over a dipshit like you.

[–] Corbell (9187) 6 days ago

Your failure to address what I said, is you being a stonewalling troll.

[–] Grifterhunter (834) 6 days ago

Dictionary overrides you. That woke definition has been in the dictionaries since the 60s. Point to me the date that leftards changed that in the dictionary. I will wait.

[–] Corbell (9187) 6 days ago

Your failure to be realistic about dictionaries is noted.

Meanwhile none of that is really relevant to the fact that your previous argument, and indeed, most of the shit you post, are meaningless logical fallacies.

[–] Grifterhunter (834) 6 days ago

Nope I gave you the chance to prove when it changed. I'm waiting still. Either prove that got changed and when or concede.

[–] Corbell (9187) 6 days ago

LOL. Dude. YOu are a pathetic shit talker.

All you have is logical fallacies. Your previous one was the logical fallacy of proof by assertion.

And now you are just changing the subject.

[–] Grifterhunter (834) 6 days ago

That's a concession. So the point stands the dictionary overrides you. I gave you the chance to prove your claim. You failed to do so.

[–] Corbell (9187) 6 days ago

No, it wasn't.

You are pathetic.

[–] Grifterhunter (834) 6 days ago

Yeah it was. I will give you another chance. Prove when the dictionary was changed by leftards about the word woke. Do that or concede.

[–] Corbell (9187) 6 days ago

Your previous argument was a logical fallacy, and you know it.

I reject your request to change the subject.

[–] Grifterhunter (834) 6 days ago

And your claim about wokeness definition being wrong was a logical fallacy. I reject your hypocrisy.

So since we can omit the dictionary I'm using that card here. I believe that fallacy definition was changed by conservatives therefore I reject that dictionary definition of it.

[–] Corbell (9187) 6 days ago

Actually, if I was wrong, as you claim, then I was just wrong.

YOU on the other hand, were using the logical fallacy of Proof by Assertion as a form of propaganda.

You are a troll and an asshole.

[–] Grifterhunter (834) 6 days ago

I think fallacy definition was changed by conservative assholes therefore I'm omitting the dictionary definition.

[–] DancingintheDark (1315) 4 days ago

I read through your initial post and was hoping for one example as to how Trump being voted in as President will negatively impact this country, and by example, I mean something specific and not a gross generalization as in, “he’s a tyrant,” or “an arrogant, egomaniac,” which I agree that he is by the way.

BTW, imo, Trump and Biden are awful human beings and undeserving of being in office, and if I had my way they would both spend the rest of their lives in a padded room together. All of that being said, I do feel that Trump is the lesser of the two evils and is better suited to not only secure our borders but at the very least, stabilize our economy until our next presidential election.

[–] AnagramYYZ (482) 4 days ago

Perhaps you should read the whole message thread. I gave the examples you require, which amounts to the dissolution of the federal infrastructure having an adverse effect on the nation when disaster strikes, whether it’s war, natural disaster, terrorism or, as we saw in 2020–an epidemic.

Trump is going to jail, so you have 1/2 of your “padded room” wish.

President Joe Biden will not be joining him, as he is a man of upstanding character and values who takes the people’s job seriously on all fronts.

[–] Destinata (2746) 15 days ago

And most of the stuff that Maher complains about in his own party is stuff that Biden has instituted and promotes. If he's going to go on the air every night saying that Biden policies are the problem, then you'd think he'd have a clue as to why Trump's doing so well -- compared to Biden, he looks great!

[–] BKB (6716) 15 days ago

Bill Maher is simply a conflicted liberal, but a liberal of yesterday when you could actually have healthy debate unlike in 2024 and he's having a hard time admitting this particular Democrat Party aren't evil in their intentions and if he sides with Trump, he fears losing his core base for his show.. 🤔

[–] Destinata (2746) 15 days ago

I'm kinda surprised he hasn't lost his core base to begin with. I'm pretty sure that the folks who watch The View don't watch Maher.

[–] AnagramYYZ (482) 14 days ago

There’s nothing wrong with having a big tent party with a knack for results and compromise.

GOP has become increasingly isolated and unstable. Their purity and loyalty test for Trump will be their downfall.

They probably lost many minority and LGBT for generations to come.

[–] Corbell (9187) 14 days ago

Why can't dems win the white vote?

[–] AnagramYYZ (482) 10 days ago

Wait and see.

[–] Corbell (9187) 10 days ago

You made a point about the GOP not being able to win minority votes, as though that is a... charge? agaisnt them.

So, let's turn it around. The dems have not won the white vote since JOHNSON, in 19 fucking 62!!!

Does that indicate, in your mind, something wrong with teh dems?
.

[–] Destinata (2746) 14 days ago

I know a lot of LGBTQIA+ folk on Twitter/X that are Republicans. GayPatriot and his husband are only two, but likely the most famous...other than Richard Grenell. Biden knows he's losing minorities left and right. His "Everybody Hates You" commencement speech at a Black college got what one person called "golf clap" applause.

Biden's team doesn't seem to understand that telling us that prices dropped "dramatically" in April, when we actually go to the store and get sticker shock, doesn't convince anyone of anything but the fact that he's out of touch. Minorities don't sit around being [insert color or sexual orientation, here]. They have to do all the stuff the rest of us do to live and thrive. They care about schools that are safe for their kids. They need a good economy so they don't have to work two or three jobs just to make ends meet. They want low prices at the pump and in the grocery store. They sure don't have that with Biden, who's also threatening to take away their affordable gas cars and force them to buy expensive electric cars, while Democrat Governors are knocking down hydroelectric dams, forcing the cost of electricity to go up.

Only a few crazies have a purity and loyalty test for Trump. They also want Don, Jr. in 2028-'32, Eric in '32-'40, and Barron in '40-'48. The whole Kennedy Dynasty thing was stupid then, as is any other dynasty. Kennedy worshipers make me gag as do Trump worshipers.

[–] ewd76 (82) 12 days ago

And we got free money and were able to work from home. All that ended under Biden.

[–] tom8 (2946) 6 days ago

exactly......

[–] blue1981 (6736) 15 days ago

Biden hasn't said one thing he wants to do in a second term. I'll tell you why because he wants to remain in charge out of ego while his handlers continue to burn America to the ground. Trump has gotten his message out through "Agenda 47" and "Project 2025" knowing its going to take years if not decades to undo the historic levels of harm done to America by the Biden Regime.

[–] AnagramYYZ (482) 10 days ago

Biden knows a campaign season doesn’t need to last for years, and an incumbent with a stellar record doesn’t need rallies and so forth. He’s busy with the actual JOB itself.

We will receive his policy platform, 2nd term plans and vision for the nation during the debates (and VP debates) and at the Democratic National nominating convention in August at the United Center in Chicago.

At which time, his standing in the polls will skyrocket.

We did receive a touch of his greatness and patriotic ferver at this years State of the Union address. Fantastic speech.

[–] blue1981 (6736) 10 days ago

Busy with the job itself?? His handlers are doing the job and he doesn't do shit. He'll only wake up to eat his bran muffin and prune smoothie to help him take a shit while his handlers change his depends.

[–] AnagramYYZ (482) 10 days ago

Of course he’s doing the job… just look at how it’s aged him! You can’t have it both ways. If he were in semi-retirement playing golf and reality television in office like Trump was, putting Jared Kushner in charge of Mideast policy, etc, then the stress and toil of the responsibilities would diminish and we’d see it.

You are projecting what you value and what you want is what you are railing against—a puppet figurehead who looks energetic, spry and angry and confrontational with reporters and so forth.

You don’t even understand the role of a Chief Executive.

Trump didn’t even excel with his own area of expertise! Did he work with Congress to spearhead immigration reform in the form of a Wall? No. He failed.

In fact, if anything, Biden showed him up as the actual “real estate developer” president as he fought for the stimulative infrastructure plan of Build Back Better. It helped pull us back from the brink after worldwide pandemic recession.

Did Trump let dictators know we lead the free West, and stand up to their aggression? Definitely not.

You are picking candidates based on who you think looks boss on television, and even in that regard, you certainly have different standards than the Left. Hillary Clinton testified at Benghazi hearings for 11 hours and made all those fools look like cannon fodder and mince meat. I can’t recall a single moment of linguistical or oratory domination from Trump even AS president.

I know that neo-Confederates support Trump. Well, do you know that ACTUAL Confederates of the 1860s serving under Robert E. Lee used to underestimate him as a general and called him “Old Granny?” Do you know why? It’s because they know nothing about leadership strategy and skill, and have replaced their brains with Toxic Masculinity and homoerotic fervor.

It’s the same now. You think the President should be He-Man so you feel better about being so Beta yourself. 🤣

[–] BKB (6716) 10 days ago

Yeah?? Let's see Biden draw 100,000 people to a Rally like Trump??? Let's see Biden draw 25,000 like Trump just did AND in the Bronx at that?? 🤔

[–] tvfan (9300) 10 days ago

Biden can't even get 10K supporters in a blue city, much less in a red one, and yet, Trump manages 25K from a blue one.

[–] JoWilli (16021) 15 days ago

it will be a miracle if Trump wins. the dems will be rigging the election way more than last time.

[–] yatzo376 (7527) 15 days ago

Wrong
Trumps many crimes will keep him from winning
That is all
Who wants a jailbird for Prez?

[–] JoWilli (16021) 15 days ago

we already have one

[–] yatzo376 (7527) 15 days ago

Are you saying Trumps still Prez like the other insane MAGAS?

[–] JoWilli (16021) 15 days ago

Trump is always PREZZZ

[–] Destinata (2746) 15 days ago

Stupid is not a debate ploy. Really. If Trump is "always PREZZZ," then he's not allowed to run for a third term.

And yatzo, there are a lot of people who are going to vote for Trump who would have rather had someone else, but compared to Biden and his policies, Trump looks good. You choose to vote with the choices you're given. These guys don't make anyone enthusiastic. Not any thinking person.

Biden wonders why he's losing the minority vote. Good grief. Minorities have to eat, too. They go to the store and see what a President who spends like a drunken sailor has done to their pocket books. As the Ragin' Cajun used to say, "It's the economy, stupid!" Trump isn't going to be AS BAD as Biden in that regard, and many families are choosing between buying gasoline and food at this point.

[–] Yatzo (1446) 15 days ago

How is Trump going to lower food costs?
It’s not like he’s campaigning on it- he’s too busy in court for a plethora of crimes

[–] Destinata (2746) 14 days ago

Biden has really doubled down on the spending like an idiot. If Trump can be persuaded to rein it in, and not bring every Tom, Dick, and Harry into the country and spend even more giving them freebies, and if he can learn how to veto more, then he can at least slow inflation. Making us energy independent again will lower costs in every way that petroleum products are used.

Maybe you can tell us how you've been able to better survive Bidenomics. About half of this country is living paycheck to paycheck, and one person I know is eating only one meal a day to try to cut down on costs. A How to Survive Bidenomics Primer would be appreciated by a lot of people. Especially since you seem to be advocating for four more years of this.

[–] moviechatterer (13772) 14 days ago

The only thing Trumps gonna do is his batshit ego ideas like building his a wall and taking revenge on people or organizations he thinks have wronged him.

If pressed to do any actual leadership work on the economy of anything he'll just say "oh we cant tax rich people any more those at the bottom will just have to starve"

[–] Yatzo (1446) 14 days ago

You’re insane if you really think that lying grifting criminal will make your life better

[–] Corbell (9187) 14 days ago

You seem very hateful towards us. So does Biden.

Voting against people that hate us, so that they do not have power over us, seems like a good idea.

Trump doesn't hate us. That's the bar YOU have set for your opposition, to get my vote.

[–] yatzo376 (7527) 14 days ago

You're wrong - " I love the uneducated" -DJT

[–] Corbell (9187) 14 days ago

LOVE or just NOT HATE, either way he is clearly better than voting for people that HATE me.

So.... your point?

[–] yatzo376 (7527) 14 days ago

Trump hates you

[–] Corbell (9187) 14 days ago

Oh, you're assuming that I have well educated!!

Well, THANKS, I guess.

But, regardless, even if I was by his standards well educated, the fact that he "loves the uneducated" doesn't mean he hates the
well educated".

Binden, Biden supporters, and before him/them, other lefties in teh past, i have been getting HATE from them for decades.

I see no evidence that Trump hates me. And that makes him a far better choice that any dem candidate.

Just saying. Just "keeping it real".

[–] yatzo376 (7527) 14 days ago

He hates everybody - most of them are in jail or indicted or have deserted him.

[–] Corbell (9187) 14 days ago

I've never heard or seen anything to indicates that he hates me.

On the other hand, I've lost count of the number of lefties that have gloated to me, about the idea of me and/or people like me, "dying out" or being hated by our children or similar very dark fates.

This was a real eye opener for me, a room of liberals laughing at the idea of white male suicides.

https://freebeacon.com/politics/maine-dem-senate-hopeful-laughs-at-rising-suicide-rates-among-white-males/

""A lot of white men were committing suicide, and I almost thought, 'Yeah, great,'" Fochtmann said while laughing. "Then I thought about it little more and I thought maybe I shouldn't say that out in public."

The audience can be heard laughing with the former Senate candidate."

I mean, that's REAL HATE, deep down, hate.

Trump doesn't have that for me. At worst, he doesn't give a fuck about me.

That's infinitely better than people that want me and everylike me to "die out".

[–] Grifterhunter (834) 14 days ago

So it's fine if he hates others so long as it isn't you. Nice logic.

[–] Corbell (9187) 14 days ago

I didn't say he hated anyone. That's YATZO'S belief system, not mine.

Why are you asking ME a question based on YATZO'S unsupported assertions, instead of asking YATZO?

MY point was that he DOESN'T hate me, llke Biden does.

[–] Grifterhunter (834) 13 days ago

No you just confirmed he did. Trump spreads lies about his opponents even when he knows they are untrue. That shows he hates his opponents. Like when he tried to raise suspicion about Obama's birth certificate. That was done out of hatred.

I think it's funny you claim whichever side you are on to be the superior side. So I will be like you. Any side I'm on is superior morally to you since you are in immoral person who tells people to kill themselves. I like how I exposed you there, it shows that you don't truly believe in biblical teachings. So thanks for exposing yourself by the way. And you won't be telling people to do that again on here trust me.

[–] Corbell (9187) 13 days ago

The act of telling a "lie" about an opponent does not "show" hate.

It shows that he wanted to win, that he had a conflict with those people.

It does not show hate. it is utter nonsense to claim that it does.

The way that you just stated that, as though it does, shows that you are not a serious person, at all.

[–] Grifterhunter (834) 13 days ago

It can actually and in Trump's case I believe it does. If Biden did this or a liberal you would say it does. So no you don't get to have double standards for your guy.

Wanting to win does not excuse lying. A lie is a lie. Since we have him on record lying why should we believe anything he says?

No it shows hate that's bullshit from you.

It shows hate and it destroys his credibility. I wonder why Obama was the only person he questioned about their birth certificate? Coincidence?

[–] Corbell (9187) 13 days ago

When I talk about how liberals hate us, my most common thing to do, to support it, is to link to a video of a bunch of liberals jokeing about a rise in white male suiccides.

Or mention how many times I have had liberals gloat about how people like me are "dying out".

That's them sharing their feelings, their hate, very clearly and openly.

I don't need to point to something and say, that "shows" hate because it is my opinion that is what it does.

A group of people laugh at the idea of you committing suicide?

THAT'S hate.

Stating that someone was born in Kenya? How does that show hatred? Who the fuck cares? That is nothing to be ashamed of. It doesn't mean that you are a bad person.

It means that you are not qualified for a job that someone else wants, that's it.

That is not hate, that is a conflict of interests.

[–] Grifterhunter (834) 13 days ago

Oh I can point to how right wing people think it's funny to see Black people get killed or liberals to be assaulted. I can easily do the same thing you did. Nick Fuentes, Stephen Crowder etc.

If it's nothing to be ashamed of why did he say it in a negative way? He did it because he knew the bigots would latch into that as a way to smear him. It was a lie and he knew it. Also Obama has better grades than Trump did. He is far smarter than him.

He did that as a means of hatred the point stands.

[–] Corbell (9187) 13 days ago

No, you can't. Right wing people, as a group, generally do NOT gloat over black people getting killed or libs assaulted.

[–] Grifterhunter (834) 13 days ago

Wrong I can point to it actually. So nope wrong.

[–] Corbell (9187) 12 days ago

"It"?, Oh, you thihk that if you find one right leaning guy doing this behavior that that proves your point? That that balances out the massive and constant HATE we get from you people?

Don't be retarded. Get a life loser.

[–] Grifterhunter (834) 12 days ago

No I was saying I can point to the behavior not just one incident. I got many many scenarios which backup my claim. Get a life idiot.

[–] Corbell (9187) 12 days ago

Your first mention was a fringe w.s.

They are irrelevant fringe.

SO, that's a fail on your part.

[–] Destinata (2746) 14 days ago

Bless your heart -- and I mean that in the Southern sense -- you have zero to back that up. I will admit, like all politicians, he's a narcissist. But he doesn't hate "everybody."

And please tell me you're young. I hate to think anyone could be this ignorant and past 40.

[–] Grifterhunter (834) 12 days ago

It had nothing to do with republicans. It was an example of racist police. Nice try, you really are cute the way you attempt to twist things. My only example which you saw was about police being bad. So dirty but I saw through your bullshit once again. And you say you are honest? Right!

The point stands in have baby exampled of Republicans bring racist pieces of trash and hateful to me and mine.

[–] Corbell (9187) 12 days ago

Dude, save your hysterics for someone that gives a fuck.

You were talking shit, I called you out on it, you can't back it up.

I supported mine accusation with a link, like you whine like a fag so much when I don't, so this time I did. And you ignore it, like I knew you would.

I backed up my claim, proving it, you just talk shit, and you have a hissy fit like your whining is a supporting argument.

News flash, pussy, it's not.

You lefties are the haters. You leftiers are the bad guys. You know it, that is why you are lyin so much right now, to try to cover it up.

[–] Grifterhunter (834) 11 days ago

Lol hysterics? Keep on with that you little wimp.

Nope I was not. You asked me to backup my claim about racist cops. You gloated and said I couldn't do it. Then once I did it you had nothing to say. That's what you call backing up a claim.

Nope you didn't. You made an assertion, nothing more. The point stands republicans are awful towards mine and I can prove it with many examples. Nope I provided the racist cops. You had nothing to say once I did.

News flash you got owned you little weasel.

Republicans I'm convinced are evil. You are an evil scumbag. I will be standing against you and protecting our world. Bring it on scumbag.

[–] Corbell (9187) 11 days ago

I did NOT ask you to back up your claim about "cops".

We were discussing "liberals" vs "Trump's side".

I backed up mine with a link, and, suprise, surprise, you ignored it. It was a waste of time for me to post it. We both know that libs hate Trump supporters. You were lyign and gaslighting before the link and you continued lying after the link.

ON the otehr side, all you did was move the goal posts, from our "SIDE" to "racist cops".

That btw, shows that you know that your previous claim was shit talk.

Query: Did you go looking for links to support your claim that Trump supporters hate liberal, or did you not even bother?

[–] Grifterhunter (834) 11 days ago

Yes you did you lying sack of trash!

You gloated about me not providing any evidence.

Provide the link again and I will gladly respond with a link showcasing how trash your side is. We all know republicans hate liberals. Trump showcased that hater by lying about Obama's birth certificate. That was a way to fuel hatred if racist bigots. You know it and I know it.

Nope I can stay on this topic. You asked me to prove that and I did. So republicans right? You want evidence they are garbage? When I provide proof will you acknowledge it or you going lie like you normally do?

No it was me proving cops can be racist.

I have links for days. So proof republicans or conservatives are garbage right? Ready for my links?

[–] Corbell (9187) 11 days ago

"We all know republicans hate liberals. Trump showcased that hater by lying about Obama's birth certificate. That was a way to fuel hatred if racist bigots. You know it and I know it."

"No it was me proving cops can be racist."

See what you're clearly doing there? You making claims that the Right, or "republicans" hate liberals.

Then you offer to "prove it" by "proving" that there are some "racist cops".

You are arguing ONE assertion, but offering to prove A DIFFERENT assertion, one that has NOTHING to do with the first.

This type of disorganized thinking is common, among liberals.

MEanwhile I posted a video of a random group of liberals, laughing at the idea of white men kililng themselves.

And you demonstrated what I have said some many timess, about why I don't post links.

Because you leftard trolls just ignore it, and keep stonewalling and gaslighting.

My GOD, you're failing ALL OVER THE PLACE here. lol.

[–] Grifterhunter (834) 11 days ago

Lol. You really think I can't find republicans mocking black people dying? If I provide a video of that will you concede or bullshit your way out of it? See that's what you do. You cite evidence of a group of liberals doing that and then think that represents all of them. It's dumb logic. I pointed out racist cops. Why did I? Do those cops represent all police? See you want to pull that card on your end but if someone does it to you, you get bent out of shape. Your video proved nothing. It proved there are bad liberals nothing more. If that video proved liberals are bad then my video proved cops are racist and evil. Stupid logic right?

I didn't ignore your video. It just didn't prove your assertion. You think I support mocking suicides? What if I was to cast every bad thing done by bad republicans onto you? Would that be fair? Bottom line there are good and bad people from each political group.

[–] Corbell (9187) 11 days ago

I'm bored by you playing dumb.

The discussion was about a point that was clear.

You have choosen to pretend to be confused about it, and you've said and done a lot of retarded shit to confuse the issue so that you can reframe it, to something completely different and irrelevant.

So, go fuck yourself.

[–] Grifterhunter (834) 11 days ago

Exactly you are an idiot. You think finding negative actions of an isolated incidents of groups represents that group as a whole. I told you why I listed the cops. I directly addressed your point dumbass..it was showing you that listing that video did not represent liberals as a whole. It's ok you love being dumb though, you don't play it you actually are dumb. You got schooled go fuck yourself.

[–] Corbell (9187) 10 days ago

EXCEPT,

1. Sometimes actions do represent the thinking and feelings of a group as a whole.

2. You were discussing TWO very different groups, Republicans and racist cops. Very misleading, if one was stupid enough to give your shit talk any credibility.

3. That you pretend YOU schooled ME here, is just you being a troll boi. Go fuck yourself.

[–] Grifterhunter (834) 10 days ago

How convenient. Ok and who determined when that is true in this case? Since I can pull up racist cops who break the law, why can't I make the claim that those cops represent the entire police department. You contradict yourself repeatedly. So all liberals feel that way those people on that clip? Since you said it represents the feelings of all of them as a whole?

I was showing you how bad actions of a group doesn't represent that group entirely. Are all Christians corrupt zealots like the people in the Westboro Baptist Church who protest at dead people's funerals. Does that represent all Christians?

I didn't pretend. I did educate and school you. Get educated and go fuck yourself.

[–] Corbell (9187) 10 days ago

And again we see that I have to explain to the liberal the very idea of rational thought.

They are too used to just making assertions and when questions calling people ists and phobes, as a form of argument.

To the current point. if you have a group and an action by a single member or small portion of that group, to tell if it is reprentative of the group,

you look at a number of things, such as

1. How big of a portion was it?

2. How many isolated incidents are there? One? Dozens? Hundreds? Millions?

3. Does the isolated action match or conflict with the observative ideas and formal policies of the larger group?

4. HOw does the group respond to these isolated incidents?

Also, it is worth noting that you've done nothing to support your unstated premise that "racist cops" or "cops" are all republicans.

And let me repeat that. You didn't even state it. I don't think that you were trying to slip one past me there, I think that that was a failure on your part to actually think at all. Becuase you don't know how to think rationally about anything.

[–] Grifterhunter (834) 10 days ago

You make assertions and then when asked to back them up you call people trolls.

How big was the portion in your video?

You tell me how many are there?

This seems rather dumb. No policy of liberals indicates it's ok to murder folks or break the law.

And your group always responds correctly?

I didn't state they were all Republicans. You missed my point completely. I can easily point to things republicans have done which are bad. It's honestly very simple.

Lol no. You are getting an education today. Pay attention school is in session.

[–] Corbell (9187) 10 days ago

1. And you just demonstrated why. Because my link with the evidence, you just completely ignored.

2. YOu tell me, did you watch it? It wasn't that long.

3. The claim I made was the liberals hate me and mine. you drag shit out with stupid shit talk to try to lose the point. Laughing because white males are killing themselves was presented as evidence of hate. Would you like to address that finally or just talk in some more shit circles?

4. I made no claim of my group behaving perfectly. That was an utterly retarded thing for you to say. I said that we do not hate liberals. the way that you libs hate us. Would you like to made a response to what I actually said instead of shit you made up?

5. You didn't SAY, it but the only reason to bring them up, but your action was to bring them uup as a supporting argument to REPUBLICANS HATING. So, if you were not assuming that they are republicans then WHAT THE FUCK WERE YOU DOING?

6. You claim you can point to republicans "behaving badly" as though that... is relevant, but you didn't. YOu presented "Racist cops" as though it supported your anti-gop argument. So, that made NO SENSE.

7. My education is in how fucking dumb you can be.

[–] Grifterhunter (834) 10 days ago

I didn't ignore it. The link didn't prove your assertion. It showed a group of liberals doing a bad thing. Nothing more.

No you are the expert. I did and again it didn't prove your point.

I never condoned those actions. So yeah no.

Wrong I believe republicans hate liberals just as much. I can provide many links to prove this.

It was showing that an isolated incident didn't represent the entire group. Are you too fucking stupid to get that? It's pretty clear you stupid prick!

No I was showing that you can't judge an entire group on negative actions from their group. This is like talking to a third grader.

No I'm educating you prick.

[–] Corbell (9187) 10 days ago

BUT, teh bad thing that they do, aligns with racist policies and actions of liberals.

Thus, it does show just how full of bile and hate you libs are.

[–] Grifterhunter (834) 10 days ago

So then by this logic the drug war policy targets what mainly? Who are most affected by it? Poor people get the most damage from this policy. The right supports this policy. Does that mean right wing people mainly hate poor people because they support that policy?

A bad policy doesn't mean it guides people to action or that they themselves support it fully. So do I believe all white people hated black people before the 60s because the policies were awful towards blacks? No I do not.

[–] Corbell (9187) 10 days ago

The drug war targets drug dealers and drug users. YOU believe that it impacts poor people and thus want to then assume that means intent.

It is also worth nothing that the republicasn have no ideological beef with poor people.

Thus even if your opinion on the drug war was correct, it does not align with the ideas and policies of the GOP to show any overall "hate".

On the other hand, the Liberals and leftards of the DEMOCRATIC party, that we saw a small number laughing at the idea of white males killing themselves, does support numerous policies that discriminate against whites especially white males AND has ideological issues with the "patriarchy" and how our society is soupposedly dominated by "white men" or such shit.

Your inability to understand how to think or judge, is a sad comment on you and your kind.

[–] Corbell (9187) 14 days ago

And again, the prosecutions that we are constantly being told, are about "the law, not politics",

give political advantage to the dems....

Mmm, how odd. This just keeps happening.... It's almost like... It's almost like...something....