Total posts: 4,222
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
There's absolutely no way he can ban Muslims from Indonesia because they are not a threat to America.
true, the courts smacked him down when he tried that shit.
Created:
-->
@SirAnonymous
I really don't know what to say to that. If someone uses a gun to save their life, and that gun has a magazine that holds more rounds than the arbitrary number you decided was "high-capacity", they get arrested? Wow. I just don't know what to say.
let me phrase it this way. if someone threw a brick of cocaine at someone to defend themselves, should they get a pass for possession of a brick of cocaine just because they used it to defend themselves?. It is highly illegal to own cocaine. There is absolutely nothing wrong with defending yourself. But that illegal item didn't pop into existence at that moment. You had been breaking the law long before you needed to defend yourself.
So, yeah. In this hypothetical scenario where high capacity mags are illegal, if you are caught with one then that is a crime. What you were doing with your illegal item is irrelevant. Good on you for protecting yourself, but of course there should be consequences if you are caught with an illegal item.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
this clip is nothing. It is conspiracy theory and conjecture.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Where was the criminal evidence in that clip? That was literally nothing. All it said is that an extremely suspicious chain of events lead to the FBI being given a laptop someone claimed was hunter bidens. Then blah, blah, blah, conspiracy theory and conjecture. There was no evidence in that of any crimes.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
If you take your gun to a shooting range, you're caught.Lol, no
make sure the law includes a section that penalizes gun ranges for failing to report. If your business will be destroyed by allowing, alot of places won't allow it.
If you ever use it in self defense, you're caught.lol, no.The only way a policeman with a badge is going to get an illegal magazine is by search and seizure. I don't know how you can think any of these scenarios happen in the real world.
what are you talking about? If you use a gun in self defense, then the police are going to come. And if you used an illegal weapon part, you would get arrested (in this hypothetical scenario where these mags are illegal).
At this point, it would be more trouble than its worth for most people to keep them. They wouldn't be able to use them without severe risk.
Created:
And what are you doing to stop this so called corruption? What is your heroic stance? Making it one vote easier for A Republican to win?
Like I said, in this election cycle I think trump is enough of a threat that Biden needs to be supported. In most other election cycles, sure. The democrats need to learn that ignoring what people want is an electoral disaster. As long as people continue support corrupt, right wing policies just because they are a bit less horrible than the alternative then all america will ever get is corrupt right wing policy.
The evidence of that is that Biden is reportedly vetting several republicans for his cabinet. but so far, no one even remotely left leaning is being considered. They will never listen unless it costs them something to ignore people.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
i'll take the one who wasn't a racist conman before his mind starting going.So you are voting for Pence then, because Biden is a self-affirmed racist and Kamala is a well-known conwoman.
this is getting sad. Kamala is irrelevant. She is a side show like virtually every other VP in history. And pence is a horrible human being too.
Biden is a flawed candidate. If i had a free choice of who would be the best president, he wouldn't even make the list. But America has 2 options. Trump or Biden. And Biden is better in most ways.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Except your Godlike leader Joe Biden is not doing that.
why would he? whether it's true or not, him responding to it only adds more attention to the story. most people simply don't care about the story. And the ones that are super interested are probably already trump cultists who think Hunter did something criminal in Ukraine. Those types of people probably can't be reached no matter what biden does.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
lol @ stop and frisk for proper magazine size.
again, there is no reason for that. If you take your gun to a shooting range, you're caught. If you ever use it in self defense, you're caught. If you ever use your gun anywhere but in a secluded spot where no one can see, you could be caught. So the simple fact of owning one would be dangerous, assuming you ever actually use it.
And once you prevent new ones from being manufactured and sold, the supply starts to dry up so no one can get new ones. The problem doesn't get solved over night, it will take years, maybe decades, to get the bulk of them out of circulation. but you'll get there.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
I'd say better an orange clown than a blithering idiot who cannot remember which office he is running for, let alone in which branch of government, cannot remember where he is, and cannot recite the pledge of allegiance from memory.
but the orange clown's mind is gone too. He constantly fails to remember import facts and says words and sentences wrong. So if they both are suffering mental decline, i'll take the one who wasn't a racist conman before his mind starting going.
I at least know who it is I'm voting for. By name.
do you though? he has filled his cabinet with incompetent or corrupt assholes. Mitch McConnel decides what will and wont become law. Trump is not in control of his own government for alot of issues. Alot of other corrupt people are calling alot of the shots and trump can't or wont do anything about it.
Created:
Posted in:
It's a bit of a weird story full of really suspicious shit. Everyone should be questioning the validity of the story. Even the guy who wrote it refused to have his name on it. But, as far as i know, there isn't anything particularly negative about Joe it there. Certainly nothing criminal. All i've seen about it just humanizes Joe Biden in a way i didn't think would be possible. Him showing how much he loves and supports his son even though has a questionable history.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
lol @ stop and frisk for proper magazine size.
why would you do that? ban all import and manufacturing of larger magazines. Make owning them have stiff financial penalties. Having a 30 round mag might be fun, but if getting caught with it will ruin you financially, then why would you risk it? I mean, if you ever end up using that weapon in self defense (as you claim it is for) then you are totally fucked. in the 1st few years, yeah there will still be lots of them around. but after a few years of them being illegal to manufacture or own, supply of them will start to dry up.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Almost all gun deaths are from semi-automatic weapons including handguns.
very true. Which is why the AR ban needs to go with much more comprehensive gun reform. mandatory background checks. limits on mag sizes etc. Banning ARs is mostly just for show. You have to go much deeper to really address the problem. But it is a good 1st step.
Created:
-->
@TheUnderdog
The US military would rather enslave people than kill them with drones. The Nazis could have bombed Jewish houses but they instead chose to enslave Jews because it was profitable.
i'm sure that was part of it. but a large part of it was to hide what they were doing. Most germans had no idea the jews were being killed. The camps were to get the jews away from main urban centers so that when they began killing them, it wouldn't be common knowledge.
You sure about that? There are more armed civilians in the US than there are soliders.
true. but you are now talking about having millions of armed revolutionaries. Once are at that point, then it is the numbers that is the issue, not the weapons they possess. Millions of people will be a threat to the government either way. Your AR is pretty irrelevant to the issue.
so your argument is that people will be exposed to something, realize it isn't that bad, and make an informed choice about other things? And you want to prevent them from being able to make a choice?I didn't say that. I'm saying that if we ban certain guns, then people will get used to it. When there is another mass shooting that takes place, people are going to want to ban whatever gun was used in the shooting. When that gun is banned, some less powerful gun will be used in a shooting. People will want that banned. We see this in the U.K. Guns are very hard to get in the UK. When criminals resorted to stabbing people they wanted to kill, the UK is talking now about banning knives.
you just confirmed my point. If people ban some guns and realize their lives are the same or better, then they will be ok with banning more guns. And when their lives are the same or better, they may ban all guns. You are afraid that when people realize they don't need guns to be safe, that they will make a choice you don't like. You don't want to take basic safety measures because you are afraid people will be ok with out guns once they start to live with less of them. You are afraid people will see the truth.
No matter how much you disarm people, there will always be murder. It is what it is.
very true. But a murderer with an AR can kill alot more people than a murderer with a knife. Banning guns isn't about preventing crime, it is about reducing the severity of the crime committed.
I don't think this is the case. Bears have tough armor.
umm, you might be thinking of a turtle. Bears do not have armor. they have fur.
I'd rather arm yourself with the best gun you can get so you can kill the bear and save your life.
so why not a flamethrower? or grenades, or a rocket launcher? All those would deal with a bear too. If you think people should be allowed to arm themselves with the best weapons available, then everyone should own belt fed MGs and nuclear weapons.
We don't allow anyone to shoot anyone else period. But we can allow them to have the AK 47 to protect themselves. When Bill Clinton banned them in 1994, it had little impact on overall homicide. AK 47 bans don't work.
the point of banning guns isn't to reduce the number of crimes. it is to reduce the severity of crimes. someone who wants to murder someone can do it with a gun or a knife. But if you have an AR you can easily kill a dozen people in a few seconds. If you have a knife, you can only kill a few.
Created:
-->
@n8nrgmi
what do you think of the argument that the assualt rifle is no different than any other semi automatic rifle? or that there are other guns that dont look as lethal but are in fact just as lethal?
I would argue an AR ban doesn't go far enough. I would advocate for all automatic weapons to be banned. Ideally, something like canada's system too where high capacity mags are also illegal. It's hard to shoot an entire class in a school with mags that only hold 5 rounds. And if you need more than 5 rounds for hunting, then you are a really shitty hunter.
Created:
-->
@TheUnderdog
It worked previously. The Nazi government for example, didn't bomb Jewish households in order to kill them; they just took their guns and sent them off to concentration camps.
This was almost 100 years ago. The difference in technology between a civilian weapon and the military was tiny. In fact much of the german military was still using bolt action rifles, virtually the same weapons that civilians would have. That is nowhere near the same as today. The US military could kill you without you ever even seeing them with a drone. The idea that a guy with an AR is any sort of serious threat to the US military is a joke.
For some reason, the government doesn't like to bomb houses but if the government became tyranical, they would disarm us and send the people they don't like in concentration camps.
if the government decided to do that, why would an AR stop them? they have millions of soldiers, they have tanks and god only knows all the weapons they have. You are not a threat to your government. if the military decided to back the government, then it doesn't matter how many rifles you own, they would win.
That's like saying if we ban rape, then all sexual acts will be banned.Rape is violent, consensual sex isin't. Violent things that hurt people physically are banned to the best of my knowledge.
it's the same argument you are making. they are 2 different kinds of sex (one consensual and one not). But if we ban one, then we are in danger of banning the other. So if we ban one type of gun, then obviously we would ban all of them, right?
Or, if we allow gay marriage, then people could marry anything.The number of people who support legalized polygamy for instance (something that I support in the name of freedom, but this is off topic) has increased dramatically since gay marriage was legalized. I predict eventually polygamy will be legal just like gay marriage is right now.
so your argument is that people will be exposed to something, realize it isn't that bad, and make an informed choice about other things? And you want to prevent them from being able to make a choice? Do you not see how shitty that is? You are afraid that when people are provided more information, they will decide to do things you don't like. So you want to endanger lives today to prevent them from having that information.
There are some uses to owning a gun that can fire bullets very quickly; an example is they can be used in hunting if you see a bear in the woods. You can't kill a bear with a shotgun or a pistol. If I were a hunter in that situation, I would want an AK 47 to protect me against the bear.
if you can't kill a bear without an automatic weapon, then you have no business hunting. You can absolutely kill a bear with a shotgun or a semi-auto hunting rifle.
Lots of people also die with conventional homicide. Overall though, mass shootings account for a very small portion of homicides and all "assault weapons" are responsible for about 4% of homicides. I'd say the overall homicide rate is a bigger problem than mass shootings because homicide encompasses mass shootings.
this is a distraction argument. IE, more people die in pools than in the ocean, so we should only have protection in pools and no lifeguards at beaches on the ocean.
There are lots of other problems too, but that doesn't mean assault rifles aren't a problem. We can deal with multiple problems. We don't have to allow someone to go on shooting rampages with automatic weapons just because there is also an issue with handguns.
Created:
-->
@fauxlaw
No, you misinterpret what I said. I said a business can try to refuse service. That's not the same thing as having a carte blanche right to refuse service. That there are no current statutes addressing the issue does not mean that a business may consider they have carte blanche. A customer may file suit, believing their rights have been violated, such as a guy tossed off a commercial airline, for wearing a MAGA hat. The court can either decide against him, or for him. The law does not currently address every single possible situation, but, case by case, the law, either by statute or precedent, is slowing filling the gaps.
I disagree. If the law doesn't not say something is illegal, then it is legal. A company has the right to refuse service unless a specific law says they don't, such as the Civil Rights Act of 1964 or some state laws. You can sue and try to have existing law reinterpreted, or you can try to get new laws passed, but until that happens, the company still has the right to do it.
So a company has the right to refuse service to someone wearing a maga hat if they want, as long as there isn't a law in that state saying this is illegal.
Created:
-->
@fauxlaw
But the reason and basis of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is due to the second clause of the 13A:
can you clarify why this is relevant? We were discussing private company deciding if they want to serve a prospective customer. We weren't talking about the government creating laws to forbid MAGA hats. So that clause doesn't seem to apply, unless i have missed part of your argument.
If a business doesn't want to serve someone for wearing a MAGA hat, they don't have to unless there is a specific law in their state that says this is illegal. For example, I believe California has a law that says a business can't discriminate based on unconventional dress.
Created:
-->
@Intelligence_06
Before Lincoln came many businesses refused to serve black Americans.
the reason you cannot refuse service because of race is the Federal Civil Rights Act of 1964. It creates protected classes that you are legally not allowed to discriminate because of. So in short, a business can refuse to serve people if they want, unless it is because of one of those protected classes. EX, race, religion, country of origin.
Some states also have extra laws about this as well, so it isn't entirely consistent across the country.
Created:
-->
@fauxlaw
sorry, post 10 was a response to you.
Created:
there are no federal or state statutes requiring "no shirts, no shoes, no service" for customers for health code reasons. They actually can require those restrictions [there is no statutory basis for the claim, but they can try - posting such a notice is not strictly illegal], but they cannot post that it is for health code reasons.
exactly. They can refuse service based on what you are, or are not, wearing. They are not required to do so, but they can.
Created:
-->
@ILikePie5
For example, a business doesn't have to serve you.You sure about that?
if you walk into a business naked, see if they feel they have to serve you. They aren't allowed to refuse service based on protected statuses though, ethnicity for example.
Created:
rationalmadman still has me blocked so I can't answer directly. However, context is very important.
1st off, in this case I believe voting for the lesser of two evils is definitely important. Trump is dangerous and needs to go. However, in a normal world, this is not always the case. For example the differences between how republicans and democrats rule are almost indistinguishable in alot of cases. They aren't that different. They both love funneling money to their rich donors and craping on poor people while virtue signaling that they are protecting people.
Both parties are thoroughly corrupt. so if you "vote blue no matter who" you are straight up endorsing that corruption. They will never change as long as they believe they can attain and hold power without changing. Just look at how the Democrats have treated the left. They actively scorn them at every opportunity because they know the left has nowhere to go. They rely on the "lesser of 2 evils" argument to force people to vote for shitty, god awful policies even though left polies are popular in lots of areas. But their donors don't like them so they continue using right wing policies. The only way to show the democrats they need to actually listen to people is to show them they can't win if they don't. If you aren't willing to threaten them with your vote, then you are fully endorsing corruption.
Created:
-->
@TheUnderdog
The biggest mass shooter in history; tyrannical governments.
how? The US government has tanks, armed drones, jets etc. If the government decides they are going to do something and you use a weapon to try to stop them, then you are a criminal (how they would see it at least) and will use whatever force is necessary to restore law and order. Your dinky AR isn't going to mean a damn thing compared to the US military, and the heavily militarized police.
It sets a precedent to ban all guns in the nation once people get used to certain gun bans. Canada for instance allows cities to ban hand guns now or Treadeau wants to get that done.
this is a dumb argument. That's like saying if we ban rape, then all sexual acts will be banned. Or, if we allow gay marriage, then people could marry anything. The point of this type of argument is make people afraid to prevent any kind of change. You can defend your home just fine with a shotgun if that is what you want. You can hunt with a bolt action rifle or a shotgun. No one needs to own an assault rifle for any legitimate purpose.
They are also responsible for very little crime. When Bill Clinton banned these guns in 1994 for 10 years, it had very little impact on homicide.
ok, but they are still extremely dangerous and have no legitimate reason that they need to be owned. a mass shooting with an AR is extremely bloody.
Created:
I certainly don't condone violence against people, but it would depend very much on the circumstances. For example, a business doesn't have to serve you. If they can throw you out for not wearing a shirt, they can throw you out for wearing an objectionable hat. But you seem to be including that as some sort of violation of their rights. which it isn't. And if that guy refused to exit the building as requested, that could lead to violence. And the guy in the hat would be at fault. But i'm sure a right wing news source would spin it as an attack on freedom, or some such nonsense.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
i have no idea what this is supposed to mean.Why am I not surprised?
because you regularly spout off vague conspiracy theory nonsense that anyone who doesn't watch fox news cannot understand. So people regularly have no idea what you are talking about unless they are in the same right wing bubble you are.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Under 8 years of Obama, Israel averaged 19 deaths yearly due to Iran backed terrorism. 36 deaths in 2015.(oh 2015 was such a shitshow looking back now)In 2019 there were 9 Israeli deaths due to Iranian terrorism.Who woulda thought sanctions worked?
where are you pulling these numbers from. Also this seems to be directly contrary to your previous point. You said the Iran deal increased violence. but those numbers prove violence went down after the deal. Why are you disproving your own point?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
Irán doesn’t have the balls to go to war with us. We’d capture Tehran in a matter of a month
The US captured bagdad pretty quick too. that's not going so well.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
the difference is trump actually does have lots of ties to Russia.So what?
So trump and his campaign said over and over and over they had no ties to russia. then dozens of ties were found to russia. If they had come out and said here are our ties to russia, everything is above board, people would have been suspicious but at least they were open about it. But instead they hid everything making it all look extremely shady.
It wasn't an issue until 2016 when Obama decided to use the Russian tactic of using the state militia to eliminate the political opposition.
i have no idea what this is supposed to mean.
Obama actually used Gestapo tactics, not Trump.
no, no he did not.
Trump has actually told the FBI to stand down in many instances instead of destroying his political opposition.
and has ordered tons of fake investigations of his political opposition. like say, extorting ukraine for dirt on biden, this whole "unmasking" mess, he pushed that too.
I remember a post you made a while back lamenting the fact that Trump refused to use Gestapo tactics by refusing to use the FBI to investigate Hunter in Ukraine.
I have no idea what you mean. There was never any legitimate concern Hunter was involved in anything criminal in Ukraine. He was a figure head appointed for PR purposes after the supposed crimes were committed. And trump tried to extort Ukraine to do his dirty work for him by investigating it and smearing Joe.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
You obviously think we should lift sanctions on Iran, so that's clearly a retarded position knowing what Iran would purchase with the money.\\
I think that the sanctions are there in order to motivate them to negotiate. which they did. They made a deal which allowed the US to inspect their facilities to guarantee they weren't making nuclear weapons. If you aren't going to negotiate, then the sanctions serve no purpose. All they are doing is ensuring that Iran will stay pissed off and hostile to america forever.
You probably think we should let felons own guns and vote too.
own guns? no. vote, of course they should. They are US citizens. Stealing someone's right to vote is not ok.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
Only you would willfully give back money to a state sponsor of terrorism
only I would return stolen property as leverage for a landmark deal to reduce violence and prevent Iran from getting nuclear weapons? Anyone who wouldn't do that is an idiot, or wants the tension with Iran to be cranked up for political gain.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Well the Russiagate fake scandal lasted 4 years, so Fox has the next 4 years to push their fake scandal.
the difference is trump actually does have lots of ties to russia. and lied about them over and over. While no criminal action was found, those ties are absolutely there. "unmasking" is in no way criminal. There was never any evidence of criminality.
News is good at manufacturing outrage.
I agree. And msnbc and CNN way oversold the russia issue. But that does not excuse Fox news for making up shit completely and selling it to gullible idiots as the "biggest scandal in US history".
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
The only land that got "marked" were the qud backed paramilitary groups operating all over the middle east funded by Obamas blood money.
lol, money that was stolen from them decades earlier was returned. Why are you so bent out of shape about returning stolen property?
Obama clearly did not understand the importance of economic sanctions on Iran and how they contributed to world peace.
oh, i forgot that Iran surrendered once sanctions were put on.... oh wait, no. the violence has continued and escalated for years even with sanctions. So how exactly does it contribute to world peace, when it has had no positive effect?
Trump did though.
trump saw a deal with Obama's name on it and decided to tear it down. He massively undermined progress toward peace. Iran will never take a deal now because they know whatever republican jackass gets elected next and wants to look tough will just tear it up for political points. He guaranteed that America won't be taken seriously or trusted to keep their word.
Created:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
theres tons of evidence
lol, sure there is. And it was investigated. And they found no evidence of wrong doing.
This is the same as when trump said there was widespread voter fraud and ordered a commission to investigate. then they found no evidence it had ever happened. Next week Fox will have some new "evidence" and it won't pan out either. They just want to keep out outraged at some hypothetical nonsense.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
lol trump asked a doctor if people should drink bleach.Citation?
my apologies, it wasn't "drink bleach" it was "inject disinfectant". but he literally asked about shining UV lights inside the body and injecting disinfectant. Who can take someone like that seriously?
Created:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
the democrats crimes are being unvelied
this is, in no way, and answer to anything that was said in this thread. They found no evidence of wrongdoing in this "unmasking" nonsense. So how exactly are "crimes being unvelied"?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
LOL are you familiar with the constitution? He's going to appoint Beta Robert Francis to "hell yes we are going to take your ar's"
what does this even mean? there has already been an assault rifle ban. it was passed in 1994. The constitution didn't fall apart.
Even Harris is going to use armed police to confiscate people's legal private property. Some fantasy world you live.
what are you even talking about? Police do not confiscate legal property. So im guessing she said they would confiscate illegal guns and you are whining about it.
you can choose to live in fear, the leftist are counting on it, they have a room setup in their gilded cage already for you.
like those "caravans", or the child peddling pizza places, or the deep state? The right peddles in fear constantly. That is what they do.
yeah he escalated tensions to protect U.S. interest, economy and citizens, that's a bad thing?
well in general escalating tensions is bad. but if the outcome is good, then it can be worth it. Sadly, his escalated tensions have hurt millions of americans. Farmers and lots of companies are getting absolutely hammered by his trade wars.
Isn't tension or the appearance of a negotiation tactic?
it can be. But it can also trigger wars. And we know that trump ordered an act of war on iran, by his own admission.
I'm not convinced giving countries that hate us pallets of cash actually is beneficial, do you?
true. but returning pallets of cash, that you illegally stole from a foreign country, in order to get a landmark nuclear deal absolutely is beneficial. At least until some idiot comes in and rips up the deal.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Biden claimed the corrupt Burisma was under investigation Before Hunter was installed, so again...why would Biden install his son in a known corrupt organization?
do you not realize how stupid this question is? Hunter is an adult man. Joe does not pick his jobs for him. So he didn't "install" his son anywhere. Hunter was offered a cushy job based on his last name. Joe was not involved in that.
Devin Archer traveled to Kiev to pitch...
What exactly was that article supposed to tell me? It says Burisma brought in a bunch of high profile people to sit on the board as a PR stunt because there were suggestions there may have been criminal wrong doing. Hunter was one of those people. So hunter came in after any potential crimes were committed and was a figure head.
Why would anyone think that hunter would be in any danger from investigations of burisma? it makes no sense.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
Trump has quelled most of N.K. aggression
he has done nothing of the sort. Talks with N.K have completely broken down and they resumed weapons testing. they already have a nuclear bomb.
and reduced the U.S. presence in countries we shouldn't be in.
yes, and I acknowledge this is a good thing.
Remember Trump was going to start WW3 according to the leftist.
well he did escalate tensions with china and come dangerously close to triggering war with Iran. So, definitely not unfounded fears.
Even the terrorist attacks have been greatly reduced
evidence for that?
Say what you will, but with regards to foreign affairs and aggression, President Trump seems to have done a very good job.
he is getting american troops out of foreign conflicts. I give him credit for that. But he has escalated tensions around the world and come dangerously close to triggering a war with Iran. He hasn't really accomplished much.
Biden can't remember if he's running for the senate or presidency, now imagine you're a foreign leader....(assuming you can do that) we can add in many other senior moment instances and if you take them in totality he's unstable (the kindest term that can be used)
lol trump asked a doctor if people should drink bleach. No foreign leaders take trump seriously. No one trusts him to keep his word or even know what is going on. Biden on the other hand will have (and actually listen to) experts in international relations. People are going to be much more comfortable with him.
Who will protect the constitution, U.S. interest, jobs, economy, taxes, safety best of the 2 choices?
Biden is better on every single one of those points, except maybe taxes. He also wants to protect the rich, just like trump.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Lol, youre just pissed Trump didn't actually follow through you war monster.
no. trump's stance on getting out of wars is one of the few things I actually credit him for. But let's not pretend like he wouldn't trigger any new wars. He has threatened "fire and fury" on north korea. He ordered the assassination of an Iranian national hero (i don't see him that way, but they do). He ordered an attack on an Iranian military facility that would absolutely be an act of war, then called it off at the last minute.
So while I credit him for not triggering a new war. He has come close to doing so and has threatened to do so.
Created:
-->
@SirAnonymous
I try to avoid sites like fox news. I'm not interested in news sites that are selling outrage for clicks.
Yeah, I try to as well. That's why I was curious what people who actually do watch fox thought about this. Because no one else has ever heard of this "scandal" and now fox will switch to some new fantasy scandal biden has committed.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
Biden wins how long before we get into a yet another pointless war? Maybe we North Korea? Can't imagine him not starting up again, launching missiles etc. Iran would see it as an opportunity, maybe they'll even get billions of cash on pallets again. Is Biden going to prevent a nuclear Iran or doesn't that matter anymore?
this is such a weird train of thought. I mean Trump, by his own admission, was a matter of minutes away from committing an overt act of war against Iran, but it is Biden who is the real danger.... how do you come up with this crap?
Created:
-->
@SirAnonymous
I hadn't heard of it until the news stories came out saying it was nothing. but apparently this was a big deal in the fox news bubble.
Created:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
yes because it is an observable investigation within the DOJ...
The idea behind why this would be investigated sounds super flimsy. And since they found no wrong doing, it obviously was. So does this not make you question why fox news played it up as "the greatest scandal in american history" when it was literally nothing?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
Only morons would believe that someone could get a job in a field they know nothing about, for six figures. It’s painfully obvious they only hired him cause of his connections. Joe was warned and he didn’t do shit
no one has ever claimed Hunter was put on the board because he was talented. Well, except maybe the bidens. But if you look at who was on the board, there are several high profile people. They basically just put people on the board for show. But since Hunter wasn't on the board when the actions burisma was being investigated for took place, and also since he was a figure head with no possibility of being harmed by an investigation anyway, only a moron would think that Joe would need to do anything to protect Hunter who was never suspected of doing anything illegal.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Ok history genius, you tell me exactly why Biden thought he was corrupt. Exactly what investigation. Be specific.
We was widely seen as corrupt. There were calls for his removal from the IMF, the world bank, the EU, the US government (including the state department) and Ukrainian reform advocates. Ironically, one of the corrupt things he was doing was burying the Burisma investigation.
Biden was the one that was sent to pressure them to remove him, but it was not his idea to do it. And he also had no personal motive for doing so. This whole thing is a complete non-story.
Created:
I opened up the news and read how no one did anything wrong in the "unmasking" investigation. I had no idea anyone thought this was a thing, but apparently Hannity and Lou Dobs said this was "the greatest scandal in american history". But there was absolutely no scandal to be found.
So my question is, did right wing people actually believe this? Does this not make you question what fox news tells you when they hype a "scandal" just for it to turn out to be absolutely nothing?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
That's such a laugh. A prosecutor isn't corrupt because he is investigating your son, only inconvenient.
this is a common lie right wing idiots spread. It isn't true. Biden's son was never under investigation. A company he was on the board of was, but since he was just for show at that company anyway, there is no chance he had actually done anything wrong. Also, the investigation of that company was over before the US government (biden was acting on behalf of the US government, lots of people wanted that corrupt official gone) pressured for his removal. So there is no personal motivation for biden involved. Also, Hunter wasn't on the board at the time the actions Burisma was being for investigated were even committed. There is absolutely no reason why Hunter would be under suspicion of any criminal acts.
It's absolutely fucked up to think Biden was worried about corruption in Burisma while at the same time putting his son on the board of "corrupt Burisma."
this doesn't make any sense. Biden (on behalf the the state department) was pressuring for the firing of a corrupt prosecutor. It had nothing to do with Burisma.
Do you think Hunter was some insane coked up double agent for the CIA? Whatever.
no. I think hunter is completely irrelevant and right wing nut jobs just wish he was guilty.
I don't know what the state of extradition treaties are with Ukraine and the USA, but right now, Biden is asked to answer to criminal charges regarding Burisma and extortion in a Ukrainian court right now.
you can't possibly believe this is true. This is just so obviously a lie that I don't know where to start. I mean, he didn't commit extortion for 1. He had nothing to do with Burisma for a 2nd.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
He told Ukraine if they didn’t fire their prosecutor, son-of-a-bitch, he wouldn’t release $1B in aid.
He pressured the firing of extremely corrupt officials. Trump just hires extremely corrupt officials. So why would this be a reason not to vote for Biden?
He said he’s running for Senate.
Trump says stupid, incorrect things CONSTANTLY!! If that is a reason not to vote for someone (which I grant it is) trump is obviously the worse candidate.
He told you if you don’t vote for him, you ain’t black.
yep this one was dumb. But again, trump says stupid shit pretty much every day. So biden saying one now and then isn't a reason to vote trump.
He said unlike the Hispanic community, the black community is not diverse.
Don't remember this one, but assuming it's true, it's the same as the point before.
He said Trump’s China and Europe travel bans were xenophobic.
context sounds like it would be important for this one. Trump has put xenophobic bans in place before.
“I will beat Joe Biden.” [The media tried to excuse this by claiming he said [“I will be Joe Biden.” But that’s worse. Who is he now if he’s not Joe Biden?]
again, a minor slipup when speaking. Trump does this constantly.
He said Trump’s travel bans were a good idea.
which ones, when?
He said he has hairy legs. [tmi]
who cares? trump said he'd fuck his daughter
He likes kids running their hands up and down his legs. [TMI!]
He was telling a story about when he used to be a lifeguard. I admit it's a bit weird, but it is a nothing story.
He wants to sniff your hair. [TTTMMMIII!!!]
lol compared to trump's habits, who the hell cares?
Joe said you should not vote for him.
So?
He applauded the Harris administration.
no idea what you mean.
He said he’s running for the senate. [A second time.]“I pledge allegiance to United States America, one nation, indivis… under God… for real…”“Two million… twenty… two hundred thousand…”He said that when one person sneezes, it travels throughout the aircraft, and, “that’s me.” [What is he? A snot cloud? He said it, not me.]He said if you do everything right, there’s a 30% chance you’re still wrong. [Is that like truth over facts?]“Stand up, Chuck, let ‘em see you.” [said to Chuck Graham, who is in a wheelchair]Have you been to a 7-11 lately? Just asking because Joe told you who you would encounter.“Am I doing this again? My memory is not as good as Chief Justice Roberts.” [Even Oba’a poked him for that one.]
I'm just going to put all these together cause the answer is the same for like 90% of the shit you've put here. Who the hell cares? Trump lies and gets shit wrong all the fucking time. If saying some incorrect stuff is disqualifying, then no one should even consider voting for trump.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
You clearly didn’t both reading the comprehensive article I sent you that showed there’s historical precedent for Mitch McConnell’s actions against Garland and for Barrett. Maybe read the history before gaslighting my friend
that is a contradiction in terms. McConnel blocked an appointment because it was "too close to an election" and is now ramming through a confirmation weeks before an election. Those are exact opposite things done a few years apart. That is rank hypocrisy and political game playing with the courts. IE he is politicizing the courts. So don't be surprised or whiney when the dems respond in kind. McConnel started this, be pissed at him when the dems are forced to answer.
Created: