(06-27-2023 09:22 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  The true conspiracy nutter position -- Russiagate was a fantasy (to some degree a truism), Trump plotting to circumvent the certification vote is a fantasy.

There are people who actually believe that the Eastman plan wasnt written, nor do they believe that Pence was pressured to short circuit slates of electors by fiat.

That is that the subject itself is delusional. Not that implementing it successfully was a delusional goal, as I now take your position.

Russiagate was a fantasy, and an illogical one at that. It was science fiction without any science. But a lot of people bought it, including a couple of reasonably smart people.

There are actually people who thing, or say they think, Trump actually enlisted Putin to sway the election, 18 months before he was nominated. And Putin did so by buying Facebook ads.

What part of Russiagate do you think was real?

(06-27-2023 10:25 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(06-27-2023 09:22 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  The true conspiracy nutter position -- Russiagate was a fantasy (to some degree a truism), Trump plotting to circumvent the certification vote is a fantasy.

There are people who actually believe that the Eastman plan wasnt written, nor do they believe that Pence was pressured to short circuit slates of electors by fiat.

That is that the subject itself is delusional. Not that implementing it successfully was a delusional goal, as I now take your position.

Russiagate was a fantasy, and an illogical one at that. It was science fiction without any science. But a lot of people bought it, including a couple of reasonably smart people.

There are actually people who thing, or say they think, Trump actually enlisted Putin to sway the election, 18 months before he was nominated. And Putin did so by buying Facebook ads.

What part of Russiagate do you think was real?

Pretty broad question at the end. If anything, Manafort providing Kilimnik with internal polling data that was subsequently given to Russian intelligence is enough to say that Russiagate wasn’t a complete fantasy.

There wasn’t evidence found of Trump directly establishing a quid pro quo. But, similar to Biden-Hunter, there was enough evidence uncovered to make it clear the suspicion was not a completely nutter position.

(06-27-2023 10:16 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(06-27-2023 09:14 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(06-27-2023 08:44 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(06-27-2023 05:00 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  The press showed up. Funny thing, searches mean LE, means shutting areas down. Not like MAL is some nowhere space.

Missed the point again.

Nope.

Quote:The press was pre-alerted. DOJ wanted them there.

Evidence please. The only issue I *missed* was *your* assumption of that.

Quote:See the difference?

I was aware of the difference as I typed it. Considering zero evidence of a 'press ride along', I didnt include that. Much in the same fashion I did not include mention of Oprah greeting the search team in the foyer of MAL.

So you didn't see the CNN film of the DOJ cars pulling up to MAL with lights flashing?

Uh, you did? There's video of the FBI's vehicles first pulling up the Mar A Lago?

I did some searching and couldn't find anything. The closest I found, was this article from CNN...

Quote:Reporters who cover sensitive beats sometimes have a sense when big news is about to break. But not this time. The FBI’s Monday morning search of Mar-a-Lago – a thunderclap in American political history – happened so quietly, so secretly, that it wasn’t caught on camera at all. For the most part reporters didn’t catch wind of the FBI action until after it was over. By the time local TV news cameras showed up outside the club, there was almost nothing to see. Websites used file photos of the Florida resort since there were no dramatic shots of the search...

“The news of the raid was first reported by Peter Schorsch, the publisher of Florida Politics, a news organization that closely covers congressional and down ballot races in the state.” He tweeted about it at 6:36pm, citing two sources. I immediately texted it to Oliver Darcy and said “wonder if this is real.” Darcy said he figured “Trump will rant about it online” – and he was right. Trump’s statement followed within minutes.

https://www.cnn.com/2022/08/09/media/fbi...index.html

The tweet breaking the news was from after 6:00 PM on the day of the raid...

(06-28-2023 05:01 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-27-2023 10:25 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(06-27-2023 09:22 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  The true conspiracy nutter position -- Russiagate was a fantasy (to some degree a truism), Trump plotting to circumvent the certification vote is a fantasy.

There are people who actually believe that the Eastman plan wasnt written, nor do they believe that Pence was pressured to short circuit slates of electors by fiat.

That is that the subject itself is delusional. Not that implementing it successfully was a delusional goal, as I now take your position.

Russiagate was a fantasy, and an illogical one at that. It was science fiction without any science. But a lot of people bought it, including a couple of reasonably smart people.

There are actually people who thing, or say they think, Trump actually enlisted Putin to sway the election, 18 months before he was nominated. And Putin did so by buying Facebook ads.

What part of Russiagate do you think was real?

Pretty broad question at the end. If anything, Manafort providing Kilimnik with internal polling data that was subsequently given to Russian intelligence is enough to say that Russiagate wasn’t a complete fantasy.

There wasn’t evidence found of Trump directly establishing a quid pro quo. But, similar to Biden-Hunter, there was enough evidence uncovered to make it clear the suspicion was not a completely nutter position.

It is a complete nutter position.

In what universe do you think Trump called Putin in 2015 or so and said, "Vlad, I cannot find any hackers in the US, so will you put your guys to work buying FaceBook ads to sway the vote in Wisconsin and Michigan? If you could find out Hillary's yoga schedule that would help too. I have looked at the likely results for the next election two years from now and determined a few ads will deliver me the Blue Wall, but I cannot place those ads alone. Do this for me and I will give you Alaska back. Maybe more."

What is the basis for this fantasy?

Hillary lost. How in hell could she lose in something wasn't amiss? Therefore something is amiss.

The real mystery was that the DNC couldn't come up with a better conspiracy to promote.

I think only damn fools would believe in this outlandish fantasy. There was no quid pro quo that made any sense, as there is with the Biden Family Business. Hell,what is the quidproquo for the polling data? How does "12% of households in the Detroit are have guns" help the Russians? Why not just turn on ABC?

Sounds like you are clinging to it. Say hi to Adam Schiff for me.

(06-28-2023 07:45 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(06-28-2023 05:01 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-27-2023 10:25 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(06-27-2023 09:22 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  The true conspiracy nutter position -- Russiagate was a fantasy (to some degree a truism), Trump plotting to circumvent the certification vote is a fantasy.

There are people who actually believe that the Eastman plan wasnt written, nor do they believe that Pence was pressured to short circuit slates of electors by fiat.

That is that the subject itself is delusional. Not that implementing it successfully was a delusional goal, as I now take your position.

Russiagate was a fantasy, and an illogical one at that. It was science fiction without any science. But a lot of people bought it, including a couple of reasonably smart people.

There are actually people who thing, or say they think, Trump actually enlisted Putin to sway the election, 18 months before he was nominated. And Putin did so by buying Facebook ads.

What part of Russiagate do you think was real?

Pretty broad question at the end. If anything, Manafort providing Kilimnik with internal polling data that was subsequently given to Russian intelligence is enough to say that Russiagate wasn’t a complete fantasy.

There wasn’t evidence found of Trump directly establishing a quid pro quo. But, similar to Biden-Hunter, there was enough evidence uncovered to make it clear the suspicion was not a completely nutter position.

It is a complete nutter position.

In what universe do you think Trump called Putin in 2015 or so and said, "Vlad, I cannot find any hackers in the US, so will you put your guys to work buying FaceBook ads to sway the vote in Wisconsin and Michigan? If you could find out Hillary's yoga schedule that would help too. I have looked at the likely results for the next election two years from now and determined a few ads will deliver me the Blue Wall, but I cannot place those ads alone. Do this for me and I will give you Alaska back. Maybe more."

What is the basis for this fantasy?

Hillary lost. How in hell could she lose in something wasn't amiss? Therefore something is amiss.

The real mystery was that the DNC couldn't come up with a better conspiracy to promote.

I think only damn fools would believe in this outlandish fantasy. There was no quid pro quo that made any sense, as there is with the Biden Family Business. Hell,what is the quidproquo for the polling data? How does "12% of households in the Detroit are have guns" help the Russians? Why not just turn on ABC?

Sounds like you are clinging to it. Say hi to Adam Schiff for me.

It's a completely nutter position to think a life-long conman and grifter would assemble a team that would leverage foreign influence to help win an election? Yeah, very out of character for him!

If you think Hunter could leverage access to the White House for personal gain is reasonable, why is it not reasonable to think Trump could leverage access to the White House for personal gain?

You're conflating a number of issues here when describing the Russia-gate debacle as complete fantasy. Namely, that there is plenty of rationale reasons for Trump or his campaign team to leverage foreign resources to help win an election. Just because that is rational, does not mean the evidence bore out that it actually took place.

edit: another important conflation is suggesting that someone who thinks there is a rationale for Trump & Co. colluding with Russia believes that they actually did collude with Russia. It's like arguing that someone who says Hunter has motive to leverage his WH access did leverage his WH access. One can think the former without dipping their toe into the latter.

(06-28-2023 08:06 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-28-2023 07:45 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(06-28-2023 05:01 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-27-2023 10:25 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(06-27-2023 09:22 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  The true conspiracy nutter position -- Russiagate was a fantasy (to some degree a truism), Trump plotting to circumvent the certification vote is a fantasy.

There are people who actually believe that the Eastman plan wasnt written, nor do they believe that Pence was pressured to short circuit slates of electors by fiat.

That is that the subject itself is delusional. Not that implementing it successfully was a delusional goal, as I now take your position.

Russiagate was a fantasy, and an illogical one at that. It was science fiction without any science. But a lot of people bought it, including a couple of reasonably smart people.

There are actually people who thing, or say they think, Trump actually enlisted Putin to sway the election, 18 months before he was nominated. And Putin did so by buying Facebook ads.

What part of Russiagate do you think was real?

Pretty broad question at the end. If anything, Manafort providing Kilimnik with internal polling data that was subsequently given to Russian intelligence is enough to say that Russiagate wasn’t a complete fantasy.

There wasn’t evidence found of Trump directly establishing a quid pro quo. But, similar to Biden-Hunter, there was enough evidence uncovered to make it clear the suspicion was not a completely nutter position.

It is a complete nutter position.

In what universe do you think Trump called Putin in 2015 or so and said, "Vlad, I cannot find any hackers in the US, so will you put your guys to work buying FaceBook ads to sway the vote in Wisconsin and Michigan? If you could find out Hillary's yoga schedule that would help too. I have looked at the likely results for the next election two years from now and determined a few ads will deliver me the Blue Wall, but I cannot place those ads alone. Do this for me and I will give you Alaska back. Maybe more."

What is the basis for this fantasy?

Hillary lost. How in hell could she lose in something wasn't amiss? Therefore something is amiss.

The real mystery was that the DNC couldn't come up with a better conspiracy to promote.

I think only damn fools would believe in this outlandish fantasy. There was no quid pro quo that made any sense, as there is with the Biden Family Business. Hell,what is the quidproquo for the polling data? How does "12% of households in the Detroit are have guns" help the Russians? Why not just turn on ABC?

Sounds like you are clinging to it. Say hi to Adam Schiff for me.

It's a completely nutter position to think a life-long conman and grifter would assemble a team that would leverage foreign influence to help win an election? Yeah, very out of character for him!

If you think Hunter could leverage access to the White House for personal gain is reasonable, why is it not reasonable to think Trump could leverage access to the White House for personal gain?

You're conflating a number of issues here when describing the Russia-gate debacle as complete fantasy. Namely, that there is plenty of rationale reasons for Trump or his campaign team to leverage foreign resources to help win an election. Just because that is rational, does not mean the evidence bore out that it actually took place.

At the time of the supposed inception of the supposed conspiracy, Trump had no WH access to leverage.

At the time of the supposed conspiracy, there was no need at all for anybody to ask Russia for anything. Or are you in agreement that there were no hackers in the US that Trump could hire and that trump could not afford to place his own FB ads?

It is a theory on a par with with a conspiracy for "somebody" (maybe a Russian!!! This needs investigating!!!!)) to sell our hero some beans for his cow, so that he could climb the magic beanstalk and usurp the rightful Kingdom from the Princess and her giant gatekeeper.

(06-28-2023 08:21 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(06-28-2023 08:06 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-28-2023 07:45 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(06-28-2023 05:01 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-27-2023 10:25 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Russiagate was a fantasy, and an illogical one at that. It was science fiction without any science. But a lot of people bought it, including a couple of reasonably smart people.

There are actually people who thing, or say they think, Trump actually enlisted Putin to sway the election, 18 months before he was nominated. And Putin did so by buying Facebook ads.

What part of Russiagate do you think was real?

Pretty broad question at the end. If anything, Manafort providing Kilimnik with internal polling data that was subsequently given to Russian intelligence is enough to say that Russiagate wasn’t a complete fantasy.

There wasn’t evidence found of Trump directly establishing a quid pro quo. But, similar to Biden-Hunter, there was enough evidence uncovered to make it clear the suspicion was not a completely nutter position.

It is a complete nutter position.

In what universe do you think Trump called Putin in 2015 or so and said, "Vlad, I cannot find any hackers in the US, so will you put your guys to work buying FaceBook ads to sway the vote in Wisconsin and Michigan? If you could find out Hillary's yoga schedule that would help too. I have looked at the likely results for the next election two years from now and determined a few ads will deliver me the Blue Wall, but I cannot place those ads alone. Do this for me and I will give you Alaska back. Maybe more."

What is the basis for this fantasy?

Hillary lost. How in hell could she lose in something wasn't amiss? Therefore something is amiss.

The real mystery was that the DNC couldn't come up with a better conspiracy to promote.

I think only damn fools would believe in this outlandish fantasy. There was no quid pro quo that made any sense, as there is with the Biden Family Business. Hell,what is the quidproquo for the polling data? How does "12% of households in the Detroit are have guns" help the Russians? Why not just turn on ABC?

Sounds like you are clinging to it. Say hi to Adam Schiff for me.

It's a completely nutter position to think a life-long conman and grifter would assemble a team that would leverage foreign influence to help win an election? Yeah, very out of character for him!

If you think Hunter could leverage access to the White House for personal gain is reasonable, why is it not reasonable to think Trump could leverage access to the White House for personal gain?

You're conflating a number of issues here when describing the Russia-gate debacle as complete fantasy. Namely, that there is plenty of rationale reasons for Trump or his campaign team to leverage foreign resources to help win an election. Just because that is rational, does not mean the evidence bore out that it actually took place.

At the time of the supposed inception of the supposed conspiracy, Trump had no WH access to leverage.

Uhhhh, yeah. He was trying to gain that access. You know, the whole idea was Russia helping him get into the White House.

Quote:At the time of the supposed conspiracy, there was no need at all for anybody to ask Russia for anything. Or are you in agreement that there were no hackers in the US that Trump could hire and that trump could not afford to place his own FB ads?

This is literally a pointless counterpoint. Pointing out that other bad actors could have helped does nothing to argue against the rationality of having another bad actor help. You're arguing that it's not the act of leveraging bad actors that's illogical, it's who they wanted to leverage that was illogical...

Quote:It is a theory on a par with with a conspiracy for "somebody" (maybe a Russian!!! This needs investigating!!!!)) to sell our hero some beans for his cow, so that he could climb the magic beanstalk and usurp the rightful Kingdom from the Princess and her giant gatekeeper.

It's impressive how willing you are to see rationality in the potential for Hunter to do bad, but not for Trump and his cronies.

(06-28-2023 08:06 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  It's a completely nutter position to think a life-long conman and grifter would assemble a team that would leverage foreign influence to help win an election? Yeah, very out of character for him!

Why does one have to be a life-long con man and grifter to be a capitalist pursuing a profit in a legitimate business? Sounds like you have bought into the Democrat propaganda. IAC, Russia Gate was a conspiracy theory about winning the election, not selling access. You have your Presidents conflated.

Which person has something to sell for money - the hotel owner or the son of a politician? Where does Hunter keep his inventory? He owes millions in taxes. How did he earn his income. Fuller Brush salesman?

I guess the list of lifelong con men and grifters must include Jeff Bezos and Warren Buffet, then as well as Elon Musk.

I tend to think of con men as those who made their wealth through "public service".

(06-27-2023 07:54 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(06-27-2023 03:50 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Please -- name some. As opposed to 'examples .... on the floor of Congress'.

Leave it to this forum for people to 'demand' that others demonstrate their anecdotal observations. I don't care to argue with you about how you might define 'aggressive'....

How about from MY quick google search about congress 'grilling' FBI...
Stefanik grills Wray
Hawley grills FBI
Hawley grills Garland

If I type Congress FBI raid I get a Texas Tribune article about an FBI raid on Henry Cuellar's home potentially impacting an election... and then House.gov, Jim Jordan launches inquiry on fbi raid of Mark Houck's house.... or even the Washington Post, where FBI agents argued with their director over raiding Trump's house.

Personally, I recall mostly seeing Kennedy, Hawley and Cruz on that highly partisan site... c-span grilling Garland and some FBI people. The biggest issue I recall was the FBI 'policing' cars with certain bumper stickers on them at school board meetings. I can't recall the specifics, but I remember it sounding especially egregious, and the responses never had anything to do with there being any real reason to do so.... aka an overly-aggressive FBI... a weaponization of it.

but although I noted these anecdotal observations... I never expected to have to defend my opinions in a court of law. I'll try and keep better notes in the future... though I have a personal 90 day retention policy and I fry my hard drive.

I guess you missed the sentence "As opposed to 'examples .... on the floor of Congress'. " Thank you for the complete opposite.

And no need to 'fry your hard drive' --- best yet just dont argue in broad generalizations presented as 'steeped in fact'. *Especially* when the broad generalizations are from the kabuki theater called a congressional hearing.

If you throw out a broad generalization as a bedrock granite steeped in fact, be prepared to back it.

The issue is *you* are putting out a veritable ton of broad generalizations, with zero detail. And then cite 'on the floor of Congress' (broadly) as your basis.

First, 'on the floor of Congress' is *hardly* a source of generalized state of being -- it is where much of the worst is presented, not just presented, but performed, as kabuki theater.

So if you want to generalize about the issue and use 'on the floor of Congress' as your basis for that being the general state of everything -- have fun with that.

Quote:

Quote:If you want to repeat broad generalizations, repeating similar broad generalizations is not proof of that first braod generalization.

Nor is denying that these things exist proof that they don't. At the very least, I can demonstrate a congressional inquiry into it.... as well as lots of questions about it on the floor. While it is not proof that it exists, it absolutely is proof that the 'belief' that it exists isn't the stuff of pure fantasy.

Fantastic. I guess Congressional hearings into Bigfoot should act as a basis of fact. Sounds like a helluva standard.

Ham, no one doubts that 'aggressive raids' exist. The problem is when one is presented isolation in a kabuki theater setting, it is intended to create the basis of a widespread issue. That is the sausage factory that is congressional hearings.

Get the ranting side bite onto air, get the not so bright ones riled up on the factoid in isolation. Congressional hearing material is *far* from what exists as the norm for these types of matters. Just like, and similar to, relying on Hannity or Maddow for news.

No -- on the floor on Congress as a generalized arm sweep of proof of another broad generalization originally presented as fact doesnt fix the problems of the latter being a broad generalization. And in fact presents problems all its own, mind you.

Quote:MAYBE it's a head-fake and shimmy like Russia... but I haven't seen anyone argue that yet... I've only heard some people argue that the intrusion wasn't TOO aggressive... which is a subjective argument that I'm not really interested in.

I can tell. You havent provided a single example of a 'horrendously aggressive' police search/ seizure to go along with broad based generalization.

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:meanwhile plenty of evidence of significantly less aggressive options, including in some cases... someone turning themselves in was all that would have been required.

Details, please.

It was one of the raids of someone's home... look it up yourself.

The problem of 'broad based generalizations' now comes to roost. When pressed -- 'look it up yourself'. Got it.

Quote:

Quote:It is not smart to go into a case by case debate on such things as people are allowed to draw the lines in different places... but when these events are being brought to the floor of Congress and being directed at the heads of these agencies, you must at LEAST admit that there is SOME reason for concern.

All I hear here is broad generalizations presented as ipso facto fact.

Wow... so why don't you ask them for proof rather than me. I have anecdotal evidence and recollections... these are not ipso-facto facts... you know, like the argument that Trump absolutely illegally took documents and obstructed justice etc...
[/quote]

When pressed I actually provide details on my opinion. Amazing that.

Quote:It only becomes a fact when he is convicted of it... yet plenty of people (cough cough) present those as slam-dunk, ipso facto facts.

You are free to counter any of those points. Again, fact based opinion presented with facts. What a concept.

Quote:

Quote:As for *some* reason of concern -- there is a veritable **** ton of stuff that is cherry picked to provide political kabuki at congressional hearings. Many times to 'stir the side up'.

Yep... Russia Russia Russia is a perfect example.

Quote:Using that same 'floor of Congress' standard as being proof positive of SOME CONCERN, then by that standard of 'proof' you should admit to the that same level of concern over Russiagate. That itself is an indication of the level of 'on the floor of Congress' brings.

Funny that I actually typed that before reading this. Maybe you shouldn't assume that I wouldn't ??

Where did I assume anything Ham? All I did is state an issue, state your rationale for believing an issue, and provided a counterpoint using that same rationale.

Good for you for using my first comment right into the point I am making.

Quite the projection issue on my supposed 'assum[ing]'. Goes along with your somewhat continuous projection that I lay into you for covering for Trump. At one point I did, we had a discussion, and since then I dont. Nor have I said anything, nor implied anything of the sort since then. But on cue that projection rings through in this conversation. More than once might I add.

Quote:Except that Russiagate has been determined to have been based on false/misleading information... while many of these raids are on tape... there really isn't any debate as to the aggressiveness (or not) of the raids...

Fine. Name them. As opposed to constantly stating 'there isnt any debate' and you lapsing into argument by broad generalizations again.

Quote:The only question is whether or not those aggressive actions were warranted... i.e. the people presented some form of physical harm threat where 'guns drawn' would be required.

Hardly the same level of intricacy and detail.

Yet you cannot name any them, just refer to them broadly and with your hands waving in the the air.

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:Was it looked at with a suspicious mind? Was it corroborated? I would certainly expect them to corroborate it before relying on it for the purpose of infringing upon someone's civil rights, no?

Part of my "if" statement implicitly.

Not really... You said 'If the DOJ at the outset knew it was fabricated'... and I asked if they corroborated it. Those are not in any way the same thing. I have presented a MUCH higher barrier to violating people's rights... which is as I understand it, the same barrier as most judges would have for a raid on a convicted felon's house. I'm no expert here, but I'm pretty sure that isn't normally allowed on just an uncorroborated statement from a witness with a clear bias and/or agenda.

Corroboration is part and parcel of 'if they know it was fabricated'. Step 1: determine authenticity. Step 2: act on it.

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:If it was one person, why did 'people' lose their jobs??

Responsibility and chain of command. As it is in most any organizational setting.

Right... so not just one person on an ad hoc basis as you suggested, but a 'system' that failed to police such things. Thank you.

In the case of the Page/ FISA issue -- one person did the altering, on their own. He lost his job, and was permanently disbarred (iirc). His supervisor lost his position, for, what I can tell, being there at the time. Others were demoted in the chain for the act of being in the chain.

One person on an ad hoc basis. One actus reas. But thank you for your baseless assumption. If you want to call an act of 'being in the chain' a 'system' to assuage your ego, have at it. But then again, that is the issue between arguing specific facts, and arguing in broad generalizations.

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:Nobody in the government did anything wrong here... Trump blew/pissed on his opportunity... but you asked if anything was fabricated... and the 'impression' that there were dozens of boxes of classified material WAS fabricated by the press.... and Impressions matter during elections.

Actually it is your misconstruction between documents and pages that seems to be a good root of the issue you speak of above.

Nope... makes no difference. It still isn't remotely the dozens of boxes I mentioned.... A typical banker's box holds probably 2-3,000 pages.

Back to details. Can you note specifically where there was any reporting of 'dozens of boxes of classified materials'?

Or, back to your tendency to argue by broad generalization when one looks at it.

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:So would you accept that 'fighting' 4 years of lawsuits and subpoenas and congressional inquiries based at least mostly on lies (Russian Collusion) might ALSO tend to make a party less willing to simply be an open book and give the government deference when it comes to them telling him what he can and cannot do??

No. Trump does *nothing* but litigate and stall. In civil suits going back 2 score years. Im sorry, Trump didnt change in that respect in the slightest due to '4 years' of hardship'.

Which has nothing to do with anything I asked, does it. If you want to claim that Trump would have done it anyway, that's fine... but that isn't what I asked. I asked if 'being frustrated by pointless accusations' was ALSO an excuse to 'over-react'. I am of course paraphrasing... but you can refer to the actual question I asked.... and if you are denying that right to be frustrated, merely because it is Trump and he has a history of such things, that shows bias.

Bias for pointing out what Trump has done in civil litigation all his life? And for denoting the same tactics in the MAL case are precisely what he has done in his legal stuff for decades?

Seriously?

Im providing a counterpoint that stalling, and ignoring the legal process is his history. The same stalling and ignoring legal process that you now try to ascribe to him being hounded for 4 years. Mentioning his history is bias? Got it.

Mentioning a fairly detailed fact as a counterpoint is 'bias'? Take some meds Ham.

Quote:Criminy -- I was in a BigLaw firm that was active against Trump in '97. No -- dont give me the 'Trump was ruint by big bad government because of suits and legal proceedings' line.

Quote:So now you're hearing voices?? I've certainly never argued anything like that.

Bolded above.

Quote: All I've ever argued is that Trump didn't write the laws that he abused prior to being in government... Biden and company did.

You forgot bolded above. That doesnt seem to arguing "trump didnt write the laws, blame Biden and company".

Which begs the next question -- what laws did "Biden and company" write that he abused and is now abusing? The crux of the question isnt 'what laws are written', but 'what part of the law, and the legal process' is being flouted.

But, you now blame existing laws for the issue. Okay........ do tell us what laws.

Damn, that argument by broad generalization is a real *****.

Quote:

Quote:There is one significant issue that I didnt quite grasp until about a month ago. For his entire professional career, Trump has stolen. He stole via broken contracts, and vexatious litigation. And he had the wherewithal and chops to be the biggest dick in the world in that manner.

Then he ran across one thing/ entity that could outdick him in court. And Trump stole from it. Now Trump for the first time has to pay a protracted price.

Maybe... probably. I agree that he should, but I don't trust that he will.... and it shouldn't take someone as egregious as Trump to FINALLY get caught and not be able to wiggle out of it... like Hunter just did.

What exactly did Hunter 'wiggle out of'?

Quote:

Quote:Trump has treated *everyone* in his world in this manner. If anything, this shows how utterly fing stupid Trump is. He can stiff anyone in the business world ('so, sue me'), literally a civil form of theft for years. And has done so for 40+ years.

So why didn't Congress fix this 39 years ago? Your anger is misplaced. Criminals who don't get punished keep being criminals. If you want to stop them, you have to catch them and punish them.

My point exactly in JETFL thread. Amazing that. Thank you.

Quote:

Quote:Now -- oh poor little Donnie is being *hounded* by the one person he cant get away from paying for his crap. Bummer.

Yeah... that's a voice in your head saying that if you're hearing that from anything I said.

You are the one saying Donald's obstinance in this matter stems from government hounding, and says that bringing up his history in that regard is 'bias'.

Quote:

Quote:No, I dont buy into the 'Donald told the feds to piss off because he felt hounded over 4 years'.

More like historical Donald told the feds to piss off because he never really tangled with them full force, and felt emboldened to do his same schtick that he has slung at any civil or contractual matter for 40 years.

So again, maybe I should try YOUR game of asking why you're bringing up some unrelated 40 year old act to the issue at hand.

His history in the court system is 'unrelated' to his actions in the court system? Lolz.

Quote:BUT for the context of this discussion... it DOESN"T MAKE IT OKAY to break the law/politicize the FBI etc just because you REALLY want to get this leopard. You STILL have to follow the laws... and if you can't get him under the laws... then you need to change the laws.

Please detail the breaking the law to get this guy that has occurred.

Please detail anywhere where I have supported or condoned 'break[ing] the law..... to get this leopard'. Or is this just some wing flapping?

From where I stand, this matter *is* 'get[ting] him under the law'. But yet you ***** at me for this horrendous bias. Got it.

Look, if OO is per chance correct, and a squad of FBI little people planted **** all over his house, yeah -- that shouldnt be condoned. I dont discount that it *could* have happened. I dont see any particular evidence that it did, whether by small people or not.

Wash, rinse, repeat.

And from the other thread -- replace Donald Trump with Mother Theresa and she had been President and did this stuff -- my position would be unchanged. Full stop.

Yes, I find DJT to be detestable. I have found many times I have to be objective around detestable people, and detestable situations. That is part and parcel of what I have done for 30 years. So please stop jumping up and down on your 'you simply hate DJT, that is why you are against him in this.' Good grief.

You do remember that same person, I actually supported his position during Russiagate, and the first impeachment. Or did those details escape your laser sharp focus on on my alleged bias? Oops, I know you hate 'details' and 'history', so mea culpa there.

Quote:I don't know how many more times I have to say things like this before you stop whining about 30+ year old run-ins with the same ass-hole... At SOME point, you need to recognize that Trump and to a lesser degree, Biden, Hillary, Pelosi et al are the RESULT, and not the cause.

Lolz. I suggest you actually look up my comments on Biden, Pelosi, and Hillary *before* you type that claptrap.

Oops, 'history' and 'detail' again. Mea culpa (again).

(06-28-2023 08:36 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(06-28-2023 08:06 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  It's a completely nutter position to think a life-long conman and grifter would assemble a team that would leverage foreign influence to help win an election? Yeah, very out of character for him!

Why does one have to be a life-long con man and grifter to be a capitalist pursuing a profit in a legitimate business? Sounds like you have bought into the Democrat propaganda. IAC, Russia Gate was a conspiracy theory about winning the election, not selling access. You have your Presidents conflated.

Which person has something to sell for money - the hotel owner or the son of a politician? Where does Hunter keep his inventory? He owes millions in taxes. How did he earn his income. Fuller Brush salesman?

I guess the list of lifelong con men and grifters must include Jeff Bezos and Warren Buffet, then as well as Elon Musk.

I tend to think of con men as those who made their wealth through "public service".

Sorry OO, but what is that garble up there?

Trump has decades of evidence of being a conman and a grifter - that's not a description applied to every capitalist, but this specific person. I have no idea why you think I was talking about anyone else besides Trump, but yet here you are.

Yowza!

(06-28-2023 09:33 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-28-2023 08:36 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(06-28-2023 08:06 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  It's a completely nutter position to think a life-long conman and grifter would assemble a team that would leverage foreign influence to help win an election? Yeah, very out of character for him!

Why does one have to be a life-long con man and grifter to be a capitalist pursuing a profit in a legitimate business? Sounds like you have bought into the Democrat propaganda. IAC, Russia Gate was a conspiracy theory about winning the election, not selling access. You have your Presidents conflated.

Which person has something to sell for money - the hotel owner or the son of a politician? Where does Hunter keep his inventory? He owes millions in taxes. How did he earn his income. Fuller Brush salesman?

I guess the list of lifelong con men and grifters must include Jeff Bezos and Warren Buffet, then as well as Elon Musk.

I tend to think of con men as those who made their wealth through "public service".

Sorry OO, but what is that garble up there?

Trump has decades of evidence of being a conman and a grifter - that's not a description applied to every capitalist, but this specific person. I have no idea why you think I was talking about anyone else besides Trump, but yet here you are.

Yowza!

I would like to hear specifics about what he did to deserve the labels "con man" and "grifter". If you would be so kind...

And no, "everybody says...." won't do. Especially when the "everybody" is the MSM and Democrats.

Trump has made a lot of money in real estate - a capitalist venture in a capitalist society. Lots of other capitalists have made a lot of money - even some notable Blues - and I just wonder what cons Trump ran to set him apart from all of them.

As a former business man and landlord and real estate investor, I wonder if you think all businessmen, landlords, and real estate investors are con men and grifters, so please be specific.

You were not talking abount anybody but Trump - that is the point. What did he do differently from jeff bezos or George Soros that makes him a grifter and them not?

I will be gone all day, so I will not be able to get your answer till late - I only use my phone as a phone and I have lost my IPad. See ya later.

(06-28-2023 10:11 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(06-28-2023 09:33 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-28-2023 08:36 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(06-28-2023 08:06 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  It's a completely nutter position to think a life-long conman and grifter would assemble a team that would leverage foreign influence to help win an election? Yeah, very out of character for him!

Why does one have to be a life-long con man and grifter to be a capitalist pursuing a profit in a legitimate business? Sounds like you have bought into the Democrat propaganda. IAC, Russia Gate was a conspiracy theory about winning the election, not selling access. You have your Presidents conflated.

Which person has something to sell for money - the hotel owner or the son of a politician? Where does Hunter keep his inventory? He owes millions in taxes. How did he earn his income. Fuller Brush salesman?

I guess the list of lifelong con men and grifters must include Jeff Bezos and Warren Buffet, then as well as Elon Musk.

I tend to think of con men as those who made their wealth through "public service".

Sorry OO, but what is that garble up there?

Trump has decades of evidence of being a conman and a grifter - that's not a description applied to every capitalist, but this specific person. I have no idea why you think I was talking about anyone else besides Trump, but yet here you are.

Yowza!

I would like to hear specifics about what he did to deserve the labels "con man" and "grifter". If you would be so kind...

And no, "everybody says...." won't do. Especially when the "everybody" is the MSM and Democrats.

Trump has made a lot of money in real estate - a capitalist venture in a capitalist society. Lots of other capitalists have made a lot of money - even some notable Blues - and I just wonder what cons Trump ran to set him apart from all of them.

As a former business man and landlord and real estate investor, I wonder if you think all businessmen, landlords, and real estate investors are con men and grifters, so please be specific.

You were not talking abount anybody but Trump - that is the point. What did he do differently from jeff bezos or George Soros that makes him a grifter and them not?

I will be gone all day, so I will not be able to get your answer till late - I only use my phone as a phone and I have lost my IPad. See ya later.

It's wild that, based on what I have said, you're wondering if I think all businessmen, landlords and real estate investors are conment and grifters.

I guess your head is far up Trump's... sorry, so far in the sand, that you've somehow missed the mountains of evidence presented against Trump for his dealings for years.

Quote:Steve Jenkins says he does not plan to show up at President Donald Trump’s rally next week in Wildwood.

But if he made the trek from his home in West Chester, Pennsylvania, Jenkins would bring a bill — for the tens of thousands of dollars he says Trump still owes him.

https://www.northjersey.com/story/news/c...547037002/

Quote:Presumptive Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump has been sued at least 60 times by individuals and businesses who accuse him of failing to pay for work done at his various properties, according to two published reports.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/dozens-...orts-claim

Quote:Granted, fights between developers and contractors over payments are not uncommon in the construction and real estate business. But consultants and lawyers in the industry say that Trump's tactics — like using last-minute excuses to either refuse payment or renegotiate terms — were especially cutthroat and petty.

Let's take a brief (and hardly comprehensive) tour of some of the Americans left burned by the president.

https://theweek.com/articles/783976/brie...e-swindles

Quote:“I’ve had many people that when they work for me they get very rich,” Trump said in an interview with Reuters, but, “sometimes I renegotiate.” Adding: “I’ll do that with probably 10 or 15 percent of contractors.”

The strategy has left some small business owners who have done jobs for him over three decades of real estate deals saying they have felt cheated and don’t want to ever work for him again. In a number of cases they have also faced big legal bills from subsequent court action.

Reuters reviewed more than 50 court cases and liens from contractors related to Trump projects in New York, Atlantic City, Miami and West Palm Beach, and interviewed dozens of people who have done construction jobs or legal work for him. The majority said they were paid in full and happy to work for him but at least a dozen said they had been left out of pocket or had watched as other contractors were short-changed.

Trump said these were cases in which it was clear he was being overcharged, or that a contractor had done bad work. Under those circumstances, he would refuse to pay the full amount of a final bill when it arrived, he said.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-e...4Q20151113

Grifter —-

Campaigns cannot pay the legal bills of candidates. PACs can.

Sending 10% of your campaign contributions to your PAC to pay the 3 million a month legal bill for criminal defense work and civil litigation defense work and about a score of frivolous outgoing lawsuits, and putting that 10% ‘vig’ payment into 4 point font disclaimer on campaign solicitations is a damn good indication….

(06-28-2023 11:33 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Grifter —-

Campaigns cannot pay the legal bills of candidates. PACs can.

Sending 10% of your campaign contributions to your PAC to pay the 3 million a month legal bill for criminal defense work and civil litigation defense work and about a score of frivolous outgoing lawsuits, and putting that 10% ‘vig’ payment into 4 point font disclaimer on campaign solicitations is a damn good indication….

Yeah, but what about John Kerry getting that Bronze Star that he didn't deserve????

(06-28-2023 12:25 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(06-28-2023 11:33 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Grifter —-

Campaigns cannot pay the legal bills of candidates. PACs can.

Sending 10% of your campaign contributions to your PAC to pay the 3 million a month legal bill for criminal defense work and civil litigation defense work and about a score of frivolous outgoing lawsuits, and putting that 10% ‘vig’ payment into 4 point font disclaimer on campaign solicitations is a damn good indication….

Yeah, but what about John Kerry getting that Bronze Star that he didn't deserve????

Actually, looking closer, the campaign finance issue is even worse than I noted above.

The campaign doesnt send 10%. here is the real kicker -- the ad in the visible portion says nothing *but* campaign and contribute to the campaign.

The 4 or 5 point font thing says (paraphrase) --- 'not really. By clicking you agree that 10% of the total donated will not be donated to the campaign, but to the PAC.' Unstated, the main purpose of which seems to be paying Trump's personal legal bills.

Thought I was donating to a campaign -- in reality you are as an added unknown bonus donating to the defamation suit against Cohen, the defense of the 2 remaining Jean Carroll lawsuits, the defense of the NY criminal indictments, the defense Miami indictment issue, and to paying 40 or 50 legal bills of the various witnesses. Lolz. And a co-defendant in the Miami case. Double lolz.

Yeah, that is a grift. Pretty much false pretenses all the way. The 'changeup' is hidden in literal magnifying glass size font.

(06-28-2023 12:36 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(06-28-2023 12:25 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(06-28-2023 11:33 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Grifter —-

Campaigns cannot pay the legal bills of candidates. PACs can.

Sending 10% of your campaign contributions to your PAC to pay the 3 million a month legal bill for criminal defense work and civil litigation defense work and about a score of frivolous outgoing lawsuits, and putting that 10% ‘vig’ payment into 4 point font disclaimer on campaign solicitations is a damn good indication….

Yeah, but what about John Kerry getting that Bronze Star that he didn't deserve????

Actually, looking closer, the campaign finance issue is even worse than I noted above.

The campaign doesnt send 10%. here is the real kicker -- the ad in the visible portion says nothing *but* campaign and contribute to the campaign.

The 4 or 5 point font thing says (paraphrase) --- 'not really. By clicking you agree that 10% of the total donated will not be donated to the campaign, but to the PAC.' Unstated, the main purpose of which seems to be paying Trump's personal legal bills.

Thought I was donating to a campaign -- in reality you are as an added unknown bonus donating to the defamation suit against Cohen, the defense of the 2 remaining Jean Carroll lawsuits, the defense of the NY criminal indictments, the defense Miami indictment issue, and to paying 40 or 50 legal bills of the various witnesses. Lolz. And a co-defendant in the Miami case. Double lolz.

Yeah, that is a grift. Pretty much false pretenses all the way. The 'changeup' is hidden in literal magnifying glass size font.

Pfffffffffffffffffffffffffffffft. I'm much more concerned about Gary Hart/Donna Rice.

(06-28-2023 12:36 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(06-28-2023 12:25 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(06-28-2023 11:33 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Grifter —-

Campaigns cannot pay the legal bills of candidates. PACs can.

Sending 10% of your campaign contributions to your PAC to pay the 3 million a month legal bill for criminal defense work and civil litigation defense work and about a score of frivolous outgoing lawsuits, and putting that 10% ‘vig’ payment into 4 point font disclaimer on campaign solicitations is a damn good indication….

Yeah, but what about John Kerry getting that Bronze Star that he didn't deserve????

Actually, looking closer, the campaign finance issue is even worse than I noted above.

The campaign doesnt send 10%. here is the real kicker -- the ad in the visible portion says nothing *but* campaign and contribute to the campaign.

The 4 or 5 point font thing says (paraphrase) --- 'not really. By clicking you agree that 10% of the total donated will not be donated to the campaign, but to the PAC.' Unstated, the main purpose of which seems to be paying Trump's personal legal bills.

Thought I was donating to a campaign -- in reality you are as an added unknown bonus donating to the defamation suit against Cohen, the defense of the 2 remaining Jean Carroll lawsuits, the defense of the NY criminal indictments, the defense Miami indictment issue, and to paying 40 or 50 legal bills of the various witnesses. Lolz. And a co-defendant in the Miami case. Double lolz.

Yeah, that is a grift. Pretty much false pretenses all the way. The 'changeup' is hidden in literal magnifying glass size font.

And Trump is the only one doing this, ever?

At least his stuff in the fine print.

Everybody who thinks Democratic campaign finance is pure, come over here and look at this bridge I have for sale.


Bad enough you guys make up crap, but then you compound it by claiming purity of …. Everything.


Who wants to claim Soros over his lifetime has paid every bill in full? How about Bezos, Musk, Buffet, eT al. Nobody ever sued them?

(06-28-2023 02:02 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(06-28-2023 12:36 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(06-28-2023 12:25 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(06-28-2023 11:33 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Grifter —-

Campaigns cannot pay the legal bills of candidates. PACs can.

Sending 10% of your campaign contributions to your PAC to pay the 3 million a month legal bill for criminal defense work and civil litigation defense work and about a score of frivolous outgoing lawsuits, and putting that 10% ‘vig’ payment into 4 point font disclaimer on campaign solicitations is a damn good indication….

Yeah, but what about John Kerry getting that Bronze Star that he didn't deserve????

Actually, looking closer, the campaign finance issue is even worse than I noted above.

The campaign doesnt send 10%. here is the real kicker -- the ad in the visible portion says nothing *but* campaign and contribute to the campaign.

The 4 or 5 point font thing says (paraphrase) --- 'not really. By clicking you agree that 10% of the total donated will not be donated to the campaign, but to the PAC.' Unstated, the main purpose of which seems to be paying Trump's personal legal bills.

Thought I was donating to a campaign -- in reality you are as an added unknown bonus donating to the defamation suit against Cohen, the defense of the 2 remaining Jean Carroll lawsuits, the defense of the NY criminal indictments, the defense Miami indictment issue, and to paying 40 or 50 legal bills of the various witnesses. Lolz. And a co-defendant in the Miami case. Double lolz.

Yeah, that is a grift. Pretty much false pretenses all the way. The 'changeup' is hidden in literal magnifying glass size font.

And Trump is the only one doing this, ever?

At least his stuff in the fine print.

Everybody who thinks Democratic campaign finance is pure, come over here and look at this bridge I have for sale.


Bad enough you guys make up crap, but then you compound it by claiming purity of …. Everything.


Who wants to claim Soros over his lifetime has paid every bill in full? How about Bezos, Musk, Buffet, eT al. Nobody ever sued them?

To save you, and us, some time, I recommend you just write "Whatabout" in your replies going forward. It's far more concise.

(06-28-2023 02:05 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-28-2023 02:02 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(06-28-2023 12:36 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(06-28-2023 12:25 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(06-28-2023 11:33 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Grifter —-

Campaigns cannot pay the legal bills of candidates. PACs can.

Sending 10% of your campaign contributions to your PAC to pay the 3 million a month legal bill for criminal defense work and civil litigation defense work and about a score of frivolous outgoing lawsuits, and putting that 10% ‘vig’ payment into 4 point font disclaimer on campaign solicitations is a damn good indication….

Yeah, but what about John Kerry getting that Bronze Star that he didn't deserve????

Actually, looking closer, the campaign finance issue is even worse than I noted above.

The campaign doesnt send 10%. here is the real kicker -- the ad in the visible portion says nothing *but* campaign and contribute to the campaign.

The 4 or 5 point font thing says (paraphrase) --- 'not really. By clicking you agree that 10% of the total donated will not be donated to the campaign, but to the PAC.' Unstated, the main purpose of which seems to be paying Trump's personal legal bills.

Thought I was donating to a campaign -- in reality you are as an added unknown bonus donating to the defamation suit against Cohen, the defense of the 2 remaining Jean Carroll lawsuits, the defense of the NY criminal indictments, the defense Miami indictment issue, and to paying 40 or 50 legal bills of the various witnesses. Lolz. And a co-defendant in the Miami case. Double lolz.

Yeah, that is a grift. Pretty much false pretenses all the way. The 'changeup' is hidden in literal magnifying glass size font.

And Trump is the only one doing this, ever?

At least his stuff in the fine print.

Everybody who thinks Democratic campaign finance is pure, come over here and look at this bridge I have for sale.


Bad enough you guys make up crap, but then you compound it by claiming purity of …. Everything.


Who wants to claim Soros over his lifetime has paid every bill in full? How about Bezos, Musk, Buffet, eT al. Nobody ever sued them?

To save you, and us, some time, I recommend you just write "Whatabout" in your replies going forward. It's far more concise.

What about those idiots who think the Russia investigation was legit and not crap ginned up by the Blue Party?

What about those idiots who think Joe Biden/Kamala Harris is a great choice for President?


What about those idiots who make fun instead of engaging is serious discussion?

I have said since 2016 that Trump is not somebody I would choose as a role model for my grandkids. But he is better than anybody your side has put up or is likely to put up. And that is what elections are about not the perfect person, but the better choice.

I gather most of you will be going fishing instead of voting in 2024. By going fishing, I mean staying home, writing in somebody, voting for a third party, or any other version of not casting a meaningful vote. Your option, certainly.


Shoot, by then you will probably have been given proof that Trump was a slave holder - and accepted it. And quoted it here.

Btw Lad, found my IPad.

(06-28-2023 02:02 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(06-28-2023 12:36 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(06-28-2023 12:25 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(06-28-2023 11:33 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Grifter —-

Campaigns cannot pay the legal bills of candidates. PACs can.

Sending 10% of your campaign contributions to your PAC to pay the 3 million a month legal bill for criminal defense work and civil litigation defense work and about a score of frivolous outgoing lawsuits, and putting that 10% ‘vig’ payment into 4 point font disclaimer on campaign solicitations is a damn good indication….

Yeah, but what about John Kerry getting that Bronze Star that he didn't deserve????

Actually, looking closer, the campaign finance issue is even worse than I noted above.

The campaign doesnt send 10%. here is the real kicker -- the ad in the visible portion says nothing *but* campaign and contribute to the campaign.

The 4 or 5 point font thing says (paraphrase) --- 'not really. By clicking you agree that 10% of the total donated will not be donated to the campaign, but to the PAC.' Unstated, the main purpose of which seems to be paying Trump's personal legal bills.

Thought I was donating to a campaign -- in reality you are as an added unknown bonus donating to the defamation suit against Cohen, the defense of the 2 remaining Jean Carroll lawsuits, the defense of the NY criminal indictments, the defense Miami indictment issue, and to paying 40 or 50 legal bills of the various witnesses. Lolz. And a co-defendant in the Miami case. Double lolz.

Yeah, that is a grift. Pretty much false pretenses all the way. The 'changeup' is hidden in literal magnifying glass size font.

And Trump is the only one doing this, ever?

Who said this is the only person ever?

You want instances where DJT is a grifter -- there you go.

Your response is to say -- 'well ignore that, he isnt the only'. Awesome. Whadabout.

Quote:At least his stuff in the fine print.

Enough where the dumbasses wont question it.

Quote:Everybody who thinks Democratic campaign finance is pure, come over here and look at this bridge I have for sale.

The issue is 'Trump grifting'. Now you say 'consider everyone'. Got it. Giant whadabout. i have no doubt others sleazed campaign funds. That isnt the issue. But please make it one.

Quote:Bad enough you guys make up crap, but then you compound it by claiming purity of …. Everything.

What have I 'made up'? Specifically.

Where have I claimed 'purity of everything'. Specifically.

Quote:Who wants to claim Soros over his lifetime has paid every bill in full? How about Bezos, Musk, Buffet, eT al. Nobody ever sued them?

Sure they get sued. Not with the clockwork regularity of DJT and his contracts. Imagine that.

That fact of Donald being sued by just about everyone, and him skipping out on jsut about every contract he has ever touched, has been in existence for 30 flipping years or more. Sorry, but that is the ground truth, no matter how much you yell about Soros or Bezos or Buffett.