Dump Shithole

[EddieVanHeineken]

Woodward's book is gonna be insane. Even Tucker Carlson called Donald stupid for being interviewed 18 times and just blurting stuff out that a smarter person would definitely know not to bring up.

Here's another doozy. He admits to protecting Mohammed bin Salman from facing consequences for the murder of Jamal Khashoggi.

https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-w ... age-2020-9

Is this FINALLY gonna be the book that takes the Cheeto in Chief down? We have been teased for a while now. Sure hope this is the one.

Nope. If tRumpists read anything they’d have abandoned him Already. They didn’t read the mueller report. It’s 4-500 pages. No way they’re reading that. They didn’t Read the recently released congressional report. It was 900 pages, not happening. Now at they are reading Woodward’s book, they don’t even want to listen to the recordings of trump saying exactly what’s in the book,

[exitflagger]

Fuhrer Dickweed is hard at it. Yesterday he had a reporter removed from his Michigan rally for live tweeting photo documentation that the crowd there mostly were not wearing masks and were not safely distancing. Today he is claiming that if there is any demonstration or resistance on election night he will use the military to "quash" his own people.

Sieg Heil!

[NearlyNormal]

Great move, a huge win for small business.



"When we win I, as your President, will totally forgive ALL deferred payroll taxes with money from the General Fund. I will ALWAYS protect Seniors and your Social Security! Sleepy Joe Biden will do the opposite, he will raise your taxes and DESTROY our Country!"

[exitflagger]

Great move, a huge win for small business.



"When we win I, as your President, will totally forgive ALL deferred payroll taxes with money from the General Fund. I will ALWAYS protect Seniors and your Social Security! Sleepy Joe Biden will do the opposite, he will raise your taxes and DESTROY our Country!"

Heavy hitting stuff there. That should make everybody forget all the other bullshit, right? Uh huh.

[Metal Sludge]

Great move, a huge win for small business.



"When we win I, as your President, will totally forgive ALL deferred payroll taxes with money from the General Fund. I will ALWAYS protect Seniors and your Social Security! Sleepy Joe Biden will do the opposite, he will raise your taxes and DESTROY our Country!"

And without payroll taxes, where will that Social Security money come from? He's going to make the deferred amount permanent? He said he was going to defer payroll taxes permanently.
I work for a small business.
We aren't deferring payroll taxes, even though only one employee makes under 100K. No one want's to make that up in Q1 of 2021.
Joe Biden will raise taxes on the 1%. I know you're not that. Quit crying.

[Rorysfan]

Great move, a huge win for small business.



"When we win I, as your President, will totally forgive ALL deferred payroll taxes with money from the General Fund. I will ALWAYS protect Seniors and your Social Security! Sleepy Joe Biden will do the opposite, he will raise your taxes and DESTROY our Country!"

When Trump talks about Biden raising taxes what he really means is for people like himself. He doesn't give a shit about the middle class or lower income folks, never has, never will.

[Turner Coates]

And once again, Nobel is misspelled as "Noble."
Somebody should go to a trophy shop and get Spanky a prize.

[Rageman]

[Turner Coates]

Roger Stone has urged President Donald Trump to declare "martial law" if he loses reelection in November and order arrests of Mark Zuckerberg, Tim Cook, and the Clintons
https://www.businessinsider.com/stone-c ... oss-2020-9

Roger Stone, the self-described political "dirty trickster" who advised Donald Trump's 2016 presidential campaign, has urged the president to seize power should he lose November's election.

In an interview with Alex Jones' far-right conspiracy-theory site, Infowars, Stone echoed groundless claims pushed by Trump that the Democratic Party would rig the election.

Stone encouraged Trump to consider declaring "martial law" should he lose reelection, or invoke the Insurrection Act. Using those new powers, Stone suggested, he should order the arrest of Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg, Apple CEO Tim Cook, "the Clintons," and "anybody else who can be proven to be involved in illegal activity."

The comments were made by Stone last week and first reported over the weekend by the progressive group MediaMatters.

Stone called for Trump to appoint former Rep. Bob Barr, a Georgia Republican, as a special counsel "with the specific task of forming an Election Day operation using the FBI, federal marshals, and Republican state officials across the country to be prepared to file legal objections and if necessary to physically stand in the way of criminal activity."

He said journalists should be rounded up for "seditious activities" relating to the election, singling out a report by The Daily Beast on left-wing groups discussing what to do in the event of a disputed election in November and violence on the streets.

"They want to play war — this is war," Stone said, adding: "I'm for a legal election. Everything I'm going to be involved with in terms of helping Donald Trump get elected will be perfectly transparent and legal."

[TenBenny]

Roger Stone has urged President Donald Trump to declare "martial law" if he loses reelection in November and order arrests of Mark Zuckerberg, Tim Cook, and the Clintons
https://www.businessinsider.com/stone-c ... oss-2020-9

Roger Stone, the self-described political "dirty trickster" who advised Donald Trump's 2016 presidential campaign, has urged the president to seize power should he lose November's election.

In an interview with Alex Jones' far-right conspiracy-theory site, Infowars, Stone echoed groundless claims pushed by Trump that the Democratic Party would rig the election.

Stone encouraged Trump to consider declaring "martial law" should he lose reelection, or invoke the Insurrection Act. Using those new powers, Stone suggested, he should order the arrest of Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg, Apple CEO Tim Cook, "the Clintons," and "anybody else who can be proven to be involved in illegal activity."

The comments were made by Stone last week and first reported over the weekend by the progressive group MediaMatters.

Stone called for Trump to appoint former Rep. Bob Barr, a Georgia Republican, as a special counsel "with the specific task of forming an Election Day operation using the FBI, federal marshals, and Republican state officials across the country to be prepared to file legal objections and if necessary to physically stand in the way of criminal activity."

He said journalists should be rounded up for "seditious activities" relating to the election, singling out a report by The Daily Beast on left-wing groups discussing what to do in the event of a disputed election in November and violence on the streets.

"They want to play war — this is war," Stone said, adding: "I'm for a legal election. Everything I'm going to be involved with in terms of helping Donald Trump get elected will be perfectly transparent and legal."

Stone and Trump would be in for a rude awakening. The military has already said it doesn't get involved with elections.

Aside from there being no lawful basis for doing what Stone is suggesting, much of those men and women in uniform are sick of Trump's shit anyway. His attempt to play General Patton on election week might go over like a lead balloon.

[whammybar]

https://www.thedailybeast.com/trump-war ... -wildfires

Trump Warns That ‘Explosive’ Trees Are Causing Disastrous Wildfires

President Donald Trump shrugged off climate change as a key factor in the historically disastrous wildfires ravaging the West Coast, telling reporters on Monday that clearing forests of dead leaves and trees that can “explode” is what’s necessary to limit the impact.

[Turner Coates]

https://www.thedailybeast.com/trump-war ... -wildfires

Trump Warns That ‘Explosive’ Trees Are Causing Disastrous Wildfires

President Donald Trump shrugged off climate change as a key factor in the historically disastrous wildfires ravaging the West Coast, telling reporters on Monday that clearing forests of dead leaves and trees that can “explode” is what’s necessary to limit the impact.

We could replace all the exploding type trees with ash trees. They come pre-burned.

[exitflagger]

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics ... li=BBnb7Kz

Donald Trump claims to have found Bob Woodward book Rage 'very boring'

Bitch please. This motherfucker lies about EVERYTHING. He's read that book about as much as he's flown to the fucking moon. Plus, the book is based on interviews with HIM! "Nothing to see here, folks. It's all lies. Directly quoted and recorded lies."

[TenBenny]

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics ... li=BBnb7Kz

Donald Trump claims to have found Bob Woodward book Rage 'very boring'

Bitch please. This motherfucker lies about EVERYTHING. He's read that book about as much as he's flown to the fucking moon. Plus, the book is based on interviews with HIM! "Nothing to see here, folks. It's all lies. Directly quoted and recorded lies."

Wait, he finds the book boring? Um, who was the subject of that book again?

Also, is *excitement* really the point of this book, or is it to illuminate Trump's lies and madness? Leave it to Donald to see everything in showmanship terms.

[TenBenny]

Been watching interviews tonight with a nurse who had worked at one of these immigrant detention camps. Some doctor there was giving all these women in there hysterectomies and a nurse called it out and acted as whistleblower. The women kept asking the nurse why they were all having hysterectomies and she didn't know. One woman said she was told she had cancer, but none of her medical reports indicated that she had cancer. Easily one of the most horrific things this administration has done. This is straight-up Nazi playbook shit.

[SeminiferousButtNoid]

https://apnews.com/d1f419ca67e46bd5c95c7398b648b1db
The intelligence assessments were first reported by The New York Times, then confirmed to The Associated Press by American intelligence officials and others with knowledge of the matter.

The accuracy of the content of the intelligence wasn't confirmed. The fact that assessments exist was confirmed.

This is why you never believe anonymous leaks from government officials without evidence...

U.S. commander: Intel still hasn't established Russia paid Taliban 'bounties' to kill U.S. troops

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/nation ... d-n1240020

This bullshit Russian bounties story was all over the news a couple of months ago, and now that it's debunked, isn't spoken of again. This has happened two dozen times over the past four years.

The reason this bullshit story was leaked was so that House Democrats and their new Neocon pals like Liz Cheney could authorize extension of AUMF keeping troops in the pointless 19 year Afghanistan war. And Trump-obsessed rubes fell for it. Again.

[EddieVanHeineken]

https://apnews.com/d1f419ca67e46bd5c95c7398b648b1db
The intelligence assessments were first reported by The New York Times, then confirmed to The Associated Press by American intelligence officials and others with knowledge of the matter.

The accuracy of the content of the intelligence wasn't confirmed. The fact that assessments exist was confirmed.

This is why you never believe anonymous leaks from government officials without evidence...

U.S. commander: Intel still hasn't established Russia paid Taliban 'bounties' to kill U.S. troops

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/nation ... d-n1240020

This bullshit Russian bounties story was all over the news a couple of months ago, and now that it's debunked, isn't spoken of again. This has happened two dozen times over the past four years.

The reason this bullshit story was leaked was so that House Democrats and their new Neocon pals like Liz Cheney could authorize extension of AUMF keeping troops in the pointless 19 year Afghanistan war. And Trump-obsessed rubes fell for it. Again.

It's a good practice to have skepticism with anything a person reads. But, the first thing you need to do is read what was actually written and comprehend it.

Number one: "It just has not been proved to a level of certainty that satisfies me," Gen. Frank McKenzie right in the headline.

With any intel collected, there is almost never a 100% certainty. Gen. McKenzie did not say the intelligence is "bullshit" as you say, nor does he say that it does not exist. He said it's not to a level of certainty that satisfies HIM. What level would that be? Is that 100%? 98%? 95%? 50%? He's not an intelligence officer. They work on different levels of assesment and certainty.

Number Two: "Nonetheless, current and former U.S. officials have said, many CIA officers and analysts came to believe a bounty program existed. They concluded that the Russians viewed it as a proportional response to the U.S. arming of Ukrainian units fighting Russian forces in Crimea, the source said."

I'm not saying it does or doesn't exist. As you can see, there's a difference of opinion between front line military who often don't see or have access to all of the intelligence in each instance and those who do work with that intelligence on a daily and ongoing basis.

Like I said, it's good to be skeptical and ask questions. But at least read and fully comprehend what was written before coming to any conclusions.

[Rorysfan]

https://apnews.com/d1f419ca67e46bd5c95c7398b648b1db
The intelligence assessments were first reported by The New York Times, then confirmed to The Associated Press by American intelligence officials and others with knowledge of the matter.

The accuracy of the content of the intelligence wasn't confirmed. The fact that assessments exist was confirmed.

This is why you never believe anonymous leaks from government officials without evidence...

U.S. commander: Intel still hasn't established Russia paid Taliban 'bounties' to kill U.S. troops

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/nation ... d-n1240020

This bullshit Russian bounties story was all over the news a couple of months ago, and now that it's debunked, isn't spoken of again. This has happened two dozen times over the past four years.

The reason this bullshit story was leaked was so that House Democrats and their new Neocon pals like Liz Cheney could authorize extension of AUMF keeping troops in the pointless 19 year Afghanistan war. And Trump-obsessed rubes fell for it. Again.

If it was debunked, they wouldn't still be investigating. The CIA seems satisfied there was enough evidence.

[SeminiferousButtNoid]

It's a good practice to have skepticism with anything a person reads. But, the first thing you need to do is read what was actually written and comprehend it.

Number one: "It just has not been proved to a level of certainty that satisfies me," Gen. Frank McKenzie right in the headline.

With any intel collected, there is almost never a 100% certainty. Gen. McKenzie did not say the intelligence is "bullshit" as you say, nor does he say that it does not exist. He said it's not to a level of certainty that satisfies HIM. What level would that be? Is that 100%? 98%? 95%? 50%? He's not an intelligence officer. They work on different levels of assesment and certainty.

He said there is no corroborating evidence that Russians solicited bounties to kill US soldiers in Afganistan. The original anonymous sources also provided zero evidence that Russians solicited bounties on US soldiers in Afganistan. Intelligence assessments are not evidence. Any kind of percent level that you're talking about is completely arbitrary without underlying evidence. "Certainty" is a strawman since there isn't any evidence to show that it's true or not, certain or otherwise. Intelligence assessment also showed that Saddam Hussein posessed weapons of mass destruction and there was zero evidence of that as well.

Number Two: "Nonetheless, current and former U.S. officials have said, many CIA officers and analysts came to believe a bounty program existed. They concluded that the Russians viewed it as a proportional response to the U.S. arming of Ukrainian units fighting Russian forces in Crimea, the source said."

Whether they believed a bounty program existed or not is not evidence that Russia solicited bounties on US soldiers in Afganistan. What they concluded on what the Russians viewed is also not evidence nor is there any evidence cited on how they came to this conclusion.

I'm not saying it does or doesn't exist. As you can see, there's a difference of opinion between front line military who often don't see or have access to all of the intelligence in each instance and those who do work with that intelligence on a daily and ongoing basis.

People who work in intelligence often lie and often leak anonymously to the news media without evidence based on various agendas. What matters is something called evidence.

Like I said, it's good to be skeptical and ask questions. But at least read and fully comprehend what was written before coming to any conclusions.

Really, because you haven't been sketipcal about any of the debunked Russia conspiracy shit that I've seen. It's also good practice not to believe and disseminate every silly Russia truther and Natsec flunkie argument on this board for the last four years, as you have done. It's also good practice not to make silly-assed Seth Abramson fallacious logic about what an intelligence assessment means and what it doesn't when there is no evidence to back it up.

[SeminiferousButtNoid]

The accuracy of the content of the intelligence wasn't confirmed. The fact that assessments exist was confirmed.

This is why you never believe anonymous leaks from government officials without evidence...

U.S. commander: Intel still hasn't established Russia paid Taliban 'bounties' to kill U.S. troops

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/nation ... d-n1240020

This bullshit Russian bounties story was all over the news a couple of months ago, and now that it's debunked, isn't spoken of again. This has happened two dozen times over the past four years.

The reason this bullshit story was leaked was so that House Democrats and their new Neocon pals like Liz Cheney could authorize extension of AUMF keeping troops in the pointless 19 year Afghanistan war. And Trump-obsessed rubes fell for it. Again.

If it was debunked, they wouldn't still be investigating. The CIA seems satisfied there was enough evidence.

What evidence is that? Please cite it.

[EddieVanHeineken]

It's a good practice to have skepticism with anything a person reads. But, the first thing you need to do is read what was actually written and comprehend it.

Number one: "It just has not been proved to a level of certainty that satisfies me," Gen. Frank McKenzie right in the headline.

With any intel collected, there is almost never a 100% certainty. Gen. McKenzie did not say the intelligence is "bullshit" as you say, nor does he say that it does not exist. He said it's not to a level of certainty that satisfies HIM. What level would that be? Is that 100%? 98%? 95%? 50%? He's not an intelligence officer. They work on different levels of assesment and certainty.

He said there is no corroborating evidence that Russians solicited bounties to kill US soldiers in Afganistan. The original anonymous sources also provided zero evidence that Russians solicited bounties on US soldiers in Afganistan. Intelligence assessments are not evidence. Any kind of percent level that you're talking about is completely arbitrary without underlying evidence. "Certainty" is a strawman since there isn't any evidence to show that it's true or not, certain or otherwise. Intelligence assessment also showed that Saddam Hussein posessed weapons of mass destruction and there was zero evidence of that as well.

Number Two: "Nonetheless, current and former U.S. officials have said, many CIA officers and analysts came to believe a bounty program existed. They concluded that the Russians viewed it as a proportional response to the U.S. arming of Ukrainian units fighting Russian forces in Crimea, the source said."

Whether they believed a bounty program existed or not is not evidence that Russia solicited bounties on US soldiers in Afganistan. What they concluded on what the Russians viewed is also not evidence nor is there any evidence cited on how they came to this conclusion.

I'm not saying it does or doesn't exist. As you can see, there's a difference of opinion between front line military who often don't see or have access to all of the intelligence in each instance and those who do work with that intelligence on a daily and ongoing basis.

People who work in intelligence often lie and often leak anonymously to the news media without evidence based on various agendas. What matters is something called evidence.

Like I said, it's good to be skeptical and ask questions. But at least read and fully comprehend what was written before coming to any conclusions.

Really, because you haven't been sketipcal about any of the debunked Russia conspiracy shit that I've seen. It's also good practice not to believe and disseminate every silly Russia truther and Natsec flunkie argument on this board for the last four years, as you have done. It's also good practice not to make silly-assed Seth Abramson fallacious logic about what an intelligence assessment means and what it doesn't when there is no evidence to back it up.

Is debunked the only word you know? It doesn’t appear to Mean what you think it means. Nowhere in there does it say there is no evidence as you claim.

As far as debunked Russia conspiracy. It hasn’t been debunked at all. If you actually read the mueller report and the recently released 900 page senate Report there is absolutely no way you’d think it was debunked. I mean actually read the whole thing, not Barr’s misquote,

[SeminiferousButtNoid]

Is debunked the only word you know? It doesn’t appear to Mean what you think it means. Nowhere in there does it say there is no evidence as you claim.

Then cite the evidence. If the article I posted has evidence that the Russian government solicited bounties to kill US troops in Afganistan then cite it. You can't.

As far as debunked Russia conspiracy. It hasn’t been debunked at all. If you actually read the mueller report and the recently released 900 page senate Report there is absolutely no way you’d think it was debunked. I mean actually read the whole thing, not Barr’s misquote,

Russia truthing never ends. A 40 million dollar Special Counsel investigation which found no evidence of a criminal conspiracy between the Trump Administration and the Russian government regarding the 2016 election and you still won't give up. That's why your laughable congratulations about skepticism is meaningless. You aren't skeptical about anything in this arena. You believe every conspiracy theory, and then when no evidence arrives to back it up, it's the tried and true truther response of "I'm not saying it's true or not, I'm just asking questions.

Every trick and bogus argument of the 9/11 truther movement is recrafted in Russia trutherland. Only this time it's mainstream.

[exitflagger]

Who is really listening to this fucking numbskull when he directly contradicts a DOCTOR of virology whom HE appointed as director of the CDC? He has the nerve to say "I think he made a mistake" when Redfield gives his estimate of a best case scenario on the Covid vaccine timeline. Who is stupid enough to think at this point that Trump knows his ass from a hole in the ground on ANY of this stuff? Everything he has said so far has been wrong. Anything he says can be cited verbatim as polar opposite of reality across the board.

He is a goddamn walking facepalm.

[EddieVanHeineken]

Is debunked the only word you know? It doesn’t appear to Mean what you think it means. Nowhere in there does it say there is no evidence as you claim.

Then cite the evidence. If the article I posted has evidence that the Russian government solicited bounties to kill US troops in Afganistan then cite it. You can't.

As far as debunked Russia conspiracy. It hasn’t been debunked at all. If you actually read the mueller report and the recently released 900 page senate Report there is absolutely no way you’d think it was debunked. I mean actually read the whole thing, not Barr’s misquote,

Russia truthing never ends. A 40 million dollar Special Counsel investigation which found no evidence of a criminal conspiracy between the Trump Administration and the Russian government regarding the 2016 election and you still won't give up. That's why your laughable congratulations about skepticism is meaningless. You aren't skeptical about anything in this arena. You believe every conspiracy theory, and then when no evidence arrives to back it up, it's the tried and true truther response of "I'm not saying it's true or not, I'm just asking questions.

Every trick and bogus argument of the 9/11 truther movement is recrafted in Russia trutherland. Only this time it's mainstream.

Obviously you didn't read either the Mueller Report nor the senate report that was just released. Continue being ignorant.

The Republican party has such disdain for their own kind. They feel that people like you won't read and don't understand how math, science, or taxes work. Unfortunately, to a large degree they are right. So they sit there, like Barr, Jordan, and others, and just make up shit that is completely untethered from truth because they know their followers, like you, won't actually read. They lie about tax rates because they assume their followers, like you, don't understand math or how taxes work. That's what Trump and his ilk expect of you. What's funny is that he cannot stand the people, like you, who adore him. He literally hates the working class. Go ahead and continue being intentionally, or not intentionally, obtuse. It's exactly what they want.

[SeminiferousButtNoid]

Obviously you didn't read either the Mueller Report nor the senate report that was just released. Continue being ignorant.

You have mindlessly repeated this about a dozen times on this board, like your dumbass social worker self is some kind of fucking expert. I haven't read the entire Pentagon Papers either. But I can cite specific examples from the PP about the Vietnam War. Curiously, you haven't done so from the Mueller Report...

The Mueller Report isn't secret knowledge and even a lowly New Jersey Russia truther lunatic like yourself can cite from it an make an argument. Go ahead. The Mueller Report, in his own words did not find a criminal conspiracy between the Trump Administration and the Russian government vis-a-vis the 2016 election. Apparently, you and Seth Abramson know better. Cite the evidence.

The Republican party has such disdain for their own kind. They feel that people like you won't read and don't understand how math, science, or taxes work.

The argument we are engaging in has shit all to do with the GOP or any other kind of peripheral goofy shit you think about science or math or taxes. I'm not a Republican or a Trump voter.

Unfortunately, to a large degree they are right. So they sit there, like Barr, Jordan, and others, and just make up shit that is completely untethered from truth because they know their followers, like you, won't actually read. They lie about tax rates because they assume their followers, like you, don't understand math or how taxes work. That's what Trump and his ilk expect of you. What's funny is that he cannot stand the people, like you, who adore him. He literally hates the working class. Go ahead and continue being intentionally, or not intentionally, obtuse. It's exactly what they want.

This is pathetic unadulterated babbling that has nothing to do with the argument at hand. You were tasked to provide evidence for the Russian government soliciting bounties for US soldiers in Afghanistan. You couldn't do it. You were tasked to provide evidence that there was a criminal conspiracy between the Trump administration and the Russian government regarding the 2016 election. You couldn't do it and whined about how you read the Mueller Report and you were an expert.

You are an embarrassing dunce and Russia truther.

[Rorysfan]

This is why you never believe anonymous leaks from government officials without evidence...

U.S. commander: Intel still hasn't established Russia paid Taliban 'bounties' to kill U.S. troops

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/nation ... d-n1240020

This bullshit Russian bounties story was all over the news a couple of months ago, and now that it's debunked, isn't spoken of again. This has happened two dozen times over the past four years.

The reason this bullshit story was leaked was so that House Democrats and their new Neocon pals like Liz Cheney could authorize extension of AUMF keeping troops in the pointless 19 year Afghanistan war. And Trump-obsessed rubes fell for it. Again.

If it was debunked, they wouldn't still be investigating. The CIA seems satisfied there was enough evidence.

What evidence is that? Please cite it.

So you think I have access to the CIA's files? Or are you like Trump and would rather believe Putin over our intelligence agencies?

[SeminiferousButtNoid]

So you think I have access to the CIA's files? Or are you like Trump and would rather believe Putin over our intelligence agencies?

It isn't a question of belief. There is no evidence. I've asked you three times to cite the evidence of Russian bounties on US troops and you can't do it. The CIA hasn't even made that claim.

You are a complete paranoid mong.

[EddieVanHeineken]

Obviously you didn't read either the Mueller Report nor the senate report that was just released. Continue being ignorant.

You have mindlessly repeated this about a dozen times on this board, like your dumbass social worker self is some kind of fucking expert. I haven't read the entire Pentagon Papers either. But I can cite specific examples from the PP about the Vietnam War. Curiously, you haven't done so from the Mueller Report...

The Mueller Report isn't secret knowledge and even a lowly New Jersey Russia truther lunatic like yourself can cite from it an make an argument. Go ahead. The Mueller Report, in his own words did not find a criminal conspiracy between the Trump Administration and the Russian government vis-a-vis the 2016 election. Apparently, you and Seth Abramson know better. Cite the evidence.

The Republican party has such disdain for their own kind. They feel that people like you won't read and don't understand how math, science, or taxes work.

The argument we are engaging in has shit all to do with the GOP or any other kind of peripheral goofy shit you think about science or math or taxes. I'm not a Republican or a Trump voter.

Unfortunately, to a large degree they are right. So they sit there, like Barr, Jordan, and others, and just make up shit that is completely untethered from truth because they know their followers, like you, won't actually read. They lie about tax rates because they assume their followers, like you, don't understand math or how taxes work. That's what Trump and his ilk expect of you. What's funny is that he cannot stand the people, like you, who adore him. He literally hates the working class. Go ahead and continue being intentionally, or not intentionally, obtuse. It's exactly what they want.

This is pathetic unadulterated babbling that has nothing to do with the argument at hand. You were tasked to provide evidence for the Russian government soliciting bounties for US soldiers in Afghanistan. You couldn't do it. You were tasked to provide evidence that there was a criminal conspiracy between the Trump administration and the Russian government regarding the 2016 election. You couldn't do it and whined about how you read the Mueller Report and you were an expert.

You are an embarrassing dunce and Russia truther.

First off, I wasn’t “tasked“ with anything. I pointed out to you the fact That you didn’t comprehend the 1 page article you Originally posted. And in fact, you didn’t. And now you’re all pissy about it and making personal attacks. Considering that, It’s no surprise that you Couldn’t bring yourself to read the mueller report at 400 pages nor the Senate report at 900 pages. Instead you believe people outright lying about what is in it. Like I said, if you actually read it, you’d know,

You want to attack me because I chose to dedicate a portion of my life to actually help people? That’s fine. I hope it provides a your self-loathing self some Fleeting sense of unfounded superiority and makes you feel good to do so.

[eddie lee roth]

I just overheard on the news that Bill Bar wants to gather up all the protesters and have them sedated. I didn’t catch the whole story but it sounds like he’s trying to brainwash them or something like that. I can’t believe what I’m hearing.

[exitflagger]

I just overheard on the news that Bill Bar wants to gather up all the protesters and have them sedated. I didn’t catch the whole story but it sounds like he’s trying to brainwash them or something like that. I can’t believe what I’m hearing.

He also compared the restrictions from the pandemic to slavery. I don't know how Barr managed to convince anybody when he was first appointed that he had any kind of fairness, competence or objectivity within his grasp. I remember that being a selling point for him. He is every bit as fucked in the head as Trump.