Trump Says FBI is Searching Mar-a-Lago!

28,940 Views | 631 Replies | Last: 1 mo ago by DiabloWags
BearNIt
How long do you want to ignore this user?
The documents they were looking for were described as nuclear documents. What could possibly go wrong with Orange Julius Ceasar having this kind of information? Maybe he could have another meeting with the Russians, North Koreans, or Chinese with no one in the room to make sure he doesn't spill national security secrets.
cbbass1
How long do you want to ignore this user?
BearNIt said:

The documents they were looking for were described as nuclear documents. What could possibly go wrong with Orange Julius Ceasar having this kind of information? Maybe he could have another meeting with the Russians, North Koreans, or Chinese with no one in the room to make sure he doesn't spill national security secrets.
Who knows -- he might be able to get out of debt, & finally have positive net worth.

Until his legal bills start to pile up.
BearForce2
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Garland didn't say anything in his press conference and leaked this to the media. The best they could come up with after 72 hours is nuclear documents?
I'm so thankful for Arizona, now the whole world knows they cheated. Democrats are election fraud deniers. Even little kids know they steal elections.

Democrats confess their sins through projection. They are everything they accuse others of being.
BearForce2
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I'm so thankful for Arizona, now the whole world knows they cheated. Democrats are election fraud deniers. Even little kids know they steal elections.

Democrats confess their sins through projection. They are everything they accuse others of being.
BearForce2
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Unit2Sucks said:


We don't yet know exactly what it is but now reports are coming out that a confidential informant was working with the Feds.
I'm so thankful for Arizona, now the whole world knows they cheated. Democrats are election fraud deniers. Even little kids know they steal elections.

Democrats confess their sins through projection. They are everything they accuse others of being.
bearister
How long do you want to ignore this user?
All his legal bills do is pile up. He never pays them. Why do you think he ended up with the cast of a Fellini film for his Stop the Steal Legal Team?






The only money you are ever going to see from tRump is the retainer.

Cancel my subscription to the Resurrection
Send my credentials to the House of Detention
I got some friends inside
Unit2Sucks
How long do you want to ignore this user?
cbbass1 said:

Unit2Sucks said:

DiabloWags said:

Question.... Would the owner of Bearinsider be liable for a Trump extremist who posted here and who conducted violent acts?

Is the social media platform culpable at all?
If I were BearGreg I would want to know about all of my downside risk.

No, I don't think there is any potential legal risk. Section 230 protects BI's proprietor.

But it also permits him to ban the losers who spread misinformation and dangerous rhetoric.
I'm glad he doesn't.

Free Speech is Free Speech. I still think it's important to defend our right to hold unpopular views, and to speak out. BI/OT is an open marketplace of ideas, & I love it for that. If I didn't learn a ton here, I wouldn't be here.

Once you start censoring, it's hard to stop.

Besides, I appreciate having BF2 as a punching bag. If he was banned, who would we ridicule?

Removing people who don't engage in good faith with the community is not censorship. Allowing bots and trolls to hijack the board does more to chill free speech than does eliminating the small number of people here to brigade us with propaganda for morons.
calbear93
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Unit2Sucks said:

cbbass1 said:

Unit2Sucks said:

DiabloWags said:

Question.... Would the owner of Bearinsider be liable for a Trump extremist who posted here and who conducted violent acts?

Is the social media platform culpable at all?
If I were BearGreg I would want to know about all of my downside risk.

No, I don't think there is any potential legal risk. Section 230 protects BI's proprietor.

But it also permits him to ban the losers who spread misinformation and dangerous rhetoric.
I'm glad he doesn't.

Free Speech is Free Speech. I still think it's important to defend our right to hold unpopular views, and to speak out. BI/OT is an open marketplace of ideas, & I love it for that. If I didn't learn a ton here, I wouldn't be here.

Once you start censoring, it's hard to stop.

Besides, I appreciate having BF2 as a punching bag. If he was banned, who would we ridicule?

Removing people who don't engage in good faith with the community is not censorship. Allowing bots and trolls to hijack the board does more to chill free speech than does eliminating the small number of people here to brigade us with propaganda for morons.


It's a fine line. The basis for the safe harbor is that they provide just a channel and not the substance. Once they get to moderating based on political content, the rationale for the safe harbor looks weaker. It's not an easy discussion and it often brings people from different sides of the aisle asking the same question on the basis for the exemption from liability. Because what one views as trolling can be subjective.
Unit2Sucks
How long do you want to ignore this user?
calbear93 said:

Unit2Sucks said:

cbbass1 said:

Unit2Sucks said:

DiabloWags said:

Question.... Would the owner of Bearinsider be liable for a Trump extremist who posted here and who conducted violent acts?

Is the social media platform culpable at all?
If I were BearGreg I would want to know about all of my downside risk.

No, I don't think there is any potential legal risk. Section 230 protects BI's proprietor.

But it also permits him to ban the losers who spread misinformation and dangerous rhetoric.
I'm glad he doesn't.

Free Speech is Free Speech. I still think it's important to defend our right to hold unpopular views, and to speak out. BI/OT is an open marketplace of ideas, & I love it for that. If I didn't learn a ton here, I wouldn't be here.

Once you start censoring, it's hard to stop.

Besides, I appreciate having BF2 as a punching bag. If he was banned, who would we ridicule?

Removing people who don't engage in good faith with the community is not censorship. Allowing bots and trolls to hijack the board does more to chill free speech than does eliminating the small number of people here to brigade us with propaganda for morons.


It's a fine line. The basis for the safe harbor is that they provide just a channel and not the substance. Once they get to moderating based on political content, the rationale for the safe harbor looks weaker. It's not an easy discussion and it often brings people from different sides of the aisle asking the same question on the basis for the exemption from liability. Because what one views as trolling can be subjective.
Is it a fine line?

First - I haven't advocated for censoring political speech based on partisan views. Companies rely on Section 230(c)(2) to enforce their content moderation policies. The sorts of people I'm talking about removing from the communities have already been timed out multiple times for violating BI's policies. We have plenty of good faith posters of all political views and I would not advocate applying any political lens to the content moderation.

Second and separately - I'm not aware of any social media company getting nailed for political censorship. Every conservative social media platform I'm aware of - Parler, Gettr, Gab, TheDonald, and Truth Social (run by Trump) regularly bans users who are out of step with their preferred politics. Users are banned for any speech critical of Trump or the conservative views. Yet none of them have had any adverse legal action based on that moderation or based on any content that they host. In fact, several states (Florida and Texas come to mind) have passed laws to prevent social media companies from doing this very thing and remarkably SCOTUS has struck down those laws. Companies have first amendment rights and can moderate content. I don't think anything in Section 230 or elsewhere removes the good samaritan safe harbor for substantive content moderation but I'm not an expert there. It's also possible that activist Clarence on SCOTUS convinces his radical chambermates to revisit their views and legislates changes in 230 from the bench to prevent content moderation but I think that's pretty unlikely.

tl;dr, I don't think BI should moderate content based on political speech, but if it did a better job enforcing the rules the community would be a little bit smaller (just a handful of users are responsible for the vast majority of objectionable content) and a lot better off for it. Just look at what finally banning Yogi did for the level of discussion here. Get rid of a couple more and perhaps we would have more people join in the conversations on a regular basis which would help increase the diversity of opinions.
concordtom
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Unit2Sucks said:

LOL here we are more than 3 days later and Trump still hasn't made the warrant and document list public. It sounds like he's planning on fighting the DOJ request to make it public.

So what is he hiding? He pled the fifth this week and now he's hiding documents that would be evidence of the government crimes that he and his surrogates have alleged. I suppose it's possible that he's already torn up and flushed the warrant but surely his lawyers can request another copy to release.






You know, Hitler was very dynamic. He was able to convince his entire country to fight wars on both eastern and western fronts, create Allie's in various countries he politically out-maneuvered, and round up an entire class of people for extermination.

That's retry ballsy, and accomplished, right?

Yet, when it all caved in on him at the end, what did he do?
Suddenly, he was gone.

Martyrdom seen as preferable to loser.

Unit2Sucks
How long do you want to ignore this user?
By the way, I don't buy for a second that Trump had nuclear documents. There is no way even he is dumb enough to steal that type of information.

I wouldn't be surprised if it turns out to be a false flag leaked by friends of the president so that when we find out he has something else (code word, top secret, whatever) his supporters/defenders/enablers will say "see, he didn't have nucular stuff, this is just a process crime whaa whaaa let my people go."

If he was somehow dumb enough to have stolen classified information about our nuclear program, he's going to lose a lot of support from the GOP. Like at least 2-3% which is enough to guarantee he destroys the GOPs chances in 2024.

Of course, all he has to do is agree to release the warrant and document list and we'll find out a bit more about what is really going on.
calbear93
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Didn't read all of it but got the gist of your post.

You and I disagree on the threshold for censorship. If there are clear terms that are objective and applied evenly, great. Twitter definitely struggled with that. I don't know about the practices of the far right platforms since I never read anything there and I completely expect utter insanity and stupidity.

If the board bans certain far right posters for their behavior, I can think of some on the far left who add no value and also should be banned. It needs to be based on clearly identified and politically neutral rules and applied evenly. I for one don't mind the trolls. I can defend myself and can put folks on ignore. A bit like the principle on why I don't want government censoring speech. Let me decide what is crap and what is worthy. And I will exercise individual censorship.
sycasey
How long do you want to ignore this user?
IMO it's not conservative political arguments that are the issue. I can handle open debate with those. It's people who just repeat the same stupid messages over and over and rarely engage in actual reasoned debate.

And yes, it's mostly BearForce2 and helltopay1 (assuming these are even different people) who do this. AunBear is probably the closest thing we have on the left wing here, and he doesn't spam the board nearly as often as BF2.
Unit2Sucks
How long do you want to ignore this user?
calbear93 said:

Didn't read all of it but got the gist of your post.

You and I disagree on the threshold for censorship. If there are clear terms that are objective and applied evenly, great. Twitter definitely struggled with that. I don't know about the practices of the far right platforms since I never read anything there and I completely expect utter insanity and stupidity.

If the board bans certain far right posters for their behavior, I can think of some on the far left who add no value and also should be banned. It needs to be based on clearly identified and politically neutral rules and applied evenly. I for one don't mind the trolls. I can defend myself and can put folks on ignore. A bit like the principle on why I don't want government censoring speech. Let me decide what is crap and what is worthy. And I will exercise individual censorship.


Not that it's relevant to BI, but can you point me to any case law or literature regarding the problems sites can get into for political viewpoint moderation? My recollection of MCAC vs Halleck from a few years back protected the right to viewpoint moderation. I think the concern is really that if big tech is seen to be doing that, the far right will push to repeal or amend Section 230. I don't think any of that poses a risk to BI.

Like I said, I'm not an expert in this area but my recollection is that 230 doesn't actually work the way you are claiming.
calbear93
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Unit2Sucks said:

calbear93 said:

Didn't read all of it but got the gist of your post.

You and I disagree on the threshold for censorship. If there are clear terms that are objective and applied evenly, great. Twitter definitely struggled with that. I don't know about the practices of the far right platforms since I never read anything there and I completely expect utter insanity and stupidity.

If the board bans certain far right posters for their behavior, I can think of some on the far left who add no value and also should be banned. It needs to be based on clearly identified and politically neutral rules and applied evenly. I for one don't mind the trolls. I can defend myself and can put folks on ignore. A bit like the principle on why I don't want government censoring speech. Let me decide what is crap and what is worthy. And I will exercise individual censorship.


Not that it's relevant to BI, but can you point me to any case law or literature regarding the problems sites can get into for political viewpoint moderation? My recollection of MCAC vs Halleck from a few years back protected the right to viewpoint moderation. I think the concern is really that if big tech is seen to be doing that, the far right will push to repeal or amend Section 230. I don't think any of that poses a risk to BI.

Like I said, I'm not an expert in this area but my recollection is that 230 doesn't actually work the way you are claiming.


When did I say the protection does not apply? Maybe I wrote that, but can you quote where I wrote that? I thought I said the basis for the protection gets weaker, and senators from both sides threatened to eliminate it. If I didn't write what you are arguing against, not sure of the point.
Unit2Sucks
How long do you want to ignore this user?
calbear93 said:

Unit2Sucks said:

calbear93 said:

Didn't read all of it but got the gist of your post.

You and I disagree on the threshold for censorship. If there are clear terms that are objective and applied evenly, great. Twitter definitely struggled with that. I don't know about the practices of the far right platforms since I never read anything there and I completely expect utter insanity and stupidity.

If the board bans certain far right posters for their behavior, I can think of some on the far left who add no value and also should be banned. It needs to be based on clearly identified and politically neutral rules and applied evenly. I for one don't mind the trolls. I can defend myself and can put folks on ignore. A bit like the principle on why I don't want government censoring speech. Let me decide what is crap and what is worthy. And I will exercise individual censorship.


Not that it's relevant to BI, but can you point me to any case law or literature regarding the problems sites can get into for political viewpoint moderation? My recollection of MCAC vs Halleck from a few years back protected the right to viewpoint moderation. I think the concern is really that if big tech is seen to be doing that, the far right will push to repeal or amend Section 230. I don't think any of that poses a risk to BI.

Like I said, I'm not an expert in this area but my recollection is that 230 doesn't actually work the way you are claiming.


When did I say the protection does not apply? Maybe I wrote that, but can you quote where I wrote that? I thought I said the basis for the protection gets weaker, and senators from both sides threatened to eliminate it. If I didn't write what you are arguing against, not sure of the point.


Sorry I misunderstood your point when you referred to there being a fine line in the context of a discussion of moderation by BI. If you are saying no such line exists right now, then we agree. Otherwise I'm not sure how much that entire post related to the discussion of banning bad actors on BI.
calbear93
How long do you want to ignore this user?
It is a fine line in that the lobbying efforts for the safe harbor by the platforms were that they do not influence the content and, therefore, should not be liable for the content. It worked and they have almost no liability. If's they moderate based on non-political content that is designed to keep the site functional or safe and is applied equally, the rationale stands. But if they get into moderating and banning only one side, the rationale for the protection gets weak, and if this protection ever came up for elimination, they would have less support overall. That was Twitter and Facebook's struggle. Nothing new I am suggesting that has not been argued by Twitter and Meta.
BearGoggles
How long do you want to ignore this user?
calbear93 said:

It is a fine line in that the lobbying efforts for the safe harbor by the platforms were that they do not influence the content and, therefore, should not be liable for the content. It worked and they have almost no liability. If's they moderate based on non-political content that is designed to keep the site functional or safe and is applied equally, the rationale stands. But if they get into moderating and banning only one side, the rationale for the protection gets weak, and if this protection ever came up for elimination, they would have less support overall. That was Twitter and Facebook's struggle. Nothing new I am suggesting that has not been argued by Twitter and Meta.
Is this the difference between being a provider of an internet site/service vs a publisher?

The NY Times, which operates a website, doesn't get Section 230 protection if it publishes (or allows the publication) of libelous articles under its byline. In contrast, it would not be deemed to be the publisher of third party comment in its own comment section.

I think the grey area you may be pointing to is what happens when an internet provider walks the line of becoming a publisher? At some point, does viewpoint moderation convert a service provider to a publisher (in the sense that they are permitting the publication of select viewpoints).

To my knowledge (and I'm far from an expert), there has not been a case finding a service provider to be a publisher. But I know there are lots of people out there making that argument.
calbear93
How long do you want to ignore this user?
BearGoggles said:

calbear93 said:

It is a fine line in that the lobbying efforts for the safe harbor by the platforms were that they do not influence the content and, therefore, should not be liable for the content. It worked and they have almost no liability. If's they moderate based on non-political content that is designed to keep the site functional or safe and is applied equally, the rationale stands. But if they get into moderating and banning only one side, the rationale for the protection gets weak, and if this protection ever came up for elimination, they would have less support overall. That was Twitter and Facebook's struggle. Nothing new I am suggesting that has not been argued by Twitter and Meta.
Is this the difference between being a provider of an internet site/service vs a publisher?

The NY Times, which operates a website, doesn't get Section 230 protection if it publishes (or allows the publication) of libelous articles under its byline. In contrast, it would not be deemed to be the publisher of third party comment in its own comment section.

I think the grey area you may be pointing to is what happens when an internet provider walks the line of becoming a publisher? At some point, does viewpoint moderation convert a service provider to a publisher (in the sense that they are permitting the publication of select viewpoints).

To my knowledge (and I'm far from an expert), there has not been a case finding a service provider to be a publisher. But I know there are lots of people out there making that argument.


That was the basis for the statutory protection for communication platforms. No way a case will survive motion to dismiss for failure to state a cause of action or summary judgment if a libel claim was brought against BI or Twitter. But if platforms start crossing the line into influencing and dictating the content like an editor, then the next time the statutory protection is brought up for elimination or amendment, platforms will have a tougher time lobbying under the same arguments.
BearForce2
How long do you want to ignore this user?
sycasey said:

IMO it's not conservative political arguments that are the issue. I can handle open debate with those. It's people who just repeat the same stupid messages over and over and rarely engage in actual reasoned debate.

And yes, it's mostly BearForce2 and helltopay1 (assuming these are even different people) who do this. AunBear is probably the closest thing we have on the left wing here, and he doesn't spam the board nearly as often as BF2.

How ridiculous, just use the ignore function if the veritas is too spicy.
I'm so thankful for Arizona, now the whole world knows they cheated. Democrats are election fraud deniers. Even little kids know they steal elections.

Democrats confess their sins through projection. They are everything they accuse others of being.
Unit2Sucks
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Years ago I claimed he would be the worst steward of classified information in history and he hasn't surprised me yet.

Anyone remember the accusation that his administration was sharing nuclear info with his buddies in Saudi Arabia?

Going to be really interesting to see what documents he had in his possession. Ideally we will find out what documents were taken via the grand jury subpoena in June as well as the original document retraction last year.

bearister
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Cancel my subscription to the Resurrection
Send my credentials to the House of Detention
I got some friends inside
concordtom
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Unit2Sucks said:

Years ago I claimed he would be the worst steward of classified information in history and he hasn't surprised me yet.

Anyone remember the accusation that his administration was sharing nuclear info with his buddies in Saudi Arabia?

Going to be really interesting to see what documents he had in his possession. Ideally we will find out what documents were taken via the grand jury subpoena in June as well as the original document retraction last year.


I imagine we cannot fathom the extent to his level of damage, cheating, and $ thrifting of the USA this guy did.
We hired a criminal to be the warden of the prison and head of the bank, what could go wrong?



calbear93
How long do you want to ignore this user?
sycasey said:

IMO it's not conservative political arguments that are the issue. I can handle open debate with those. It's people who just repeat the same stupid messages over and over and rarely engage in actual reasoned debate.

And yes, it's mostly BearForce2 and helltopay1 (assuming these are even different people) who do this. AunBear is probably the closest thing we have on the left wing here, and he doesn't spam the board nearly as often as BF2.
Well, that's the thing. Those who have different political views may not agree with you that what BF is doing is spamming. He may be trolling, but others may view the pool of trolls as going beyond the posters you mentioned. All of this is subjective. Now, if there are set rules, such as not starting so and so number of threads, etc., then great. Otherwise, this becomes about who you like and who you don't. There are plenty of posters I don't like, but I have no desire to ban them. I just ignore them most of the time and leave their stupidity for others to filter as they see fit.
Unit2Sucks
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Trump has been publicly stupid for so long, which has led to a treasure trove of idiotic statements. Here's one particularly funny one.


calbear93
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Unit2Sucks said:

Trump has been publicly stupid for so long, which has led to a treasure trove of idiotic statements. Here's one particularly funny one.



You know who are the dumbest people? Those without intellectual curiosity or learning agility. You know who think they have everything figured out? Dumb teenagers.
sycasey
How long do you want to ignore this user?
calbear93 said:

sycasey said:

IMO it's not conservative political arguments that are the issue. I can handle open debate with those. It's people who just repeat the same stupid messages over and over and rarely engage in actual reasoned debate.

And yes, it's mostly BearForce2 and helltopay1 (assuming these are even different people) who do this. AunBear is probably the closest thing we have on the left wing here, and he doesn't spam the board nearly as often as BF2.
Well, that's the thing. Those who have different political views may not agree with you that what BF is doing is spamming. He may be trolling, but others may view the pool of trolls as going beyond the posters you mentioned. All of this is subjective. Now, if there are set rules, such as not starting so and so number of threads, etc., then great. Otherwise, this becomes about who you like and who you don't. There are plenty of posters I don't like, but I have no desire to ban them. I just ignore them most of the time and leave their stupidity for others to filter as they see fit.
It's all just My Humble Opinion. I don't know if there's a perfect objective standard that can weed out the more clever trolls.
DiabloWags
How long do you want to ignore this user?
calbear93 said:


You know who are the dumbest people? Those without intellectual curiosity or learning agility. You know who think they have everything figured out? Dumb teenagers.
True.
calbear93
How long do you want to ignore this user?
sycasey said:

calbear93 said:

sycasey said:

IMO it's not conservative political arguments that are the issue. I can handle open debate with those. It's people who just repeat the same stupid messages over and over and rarely engage in actual reasoned debate.

And yes, it's mostly BearForce2 and helltopay1 (assuming these are even different people) who do this. AunBear is probably the closest thing we have on the left wing here, and he doesn't spam the board nearly as often as BF2.
Well, that's the thing. Those who have different political views may not agree with you that what BF is doing is spamming. He may be trolling, but others may view the pool of trolls as going beyond the posters you mentioned. All of this is subjective. Now, if there are set rules, such as not starting so and so number of threads, etc., then great. Otherwise, this becomes about who you like and who you don't. There are plenty of posters I don't like, but I have no desire to ban them. I just ignore them most of the time and leave their stupidity for others to filter as they see fit.
It's all just My Humble Opinion. I don't know if there's a perfect objective standard that can weed out the more clever trolls.
I agree. I think, for me, I would rather err on the side of over-inclusion. If there are some egregious behavior, such as starting more than 5 threads a day, then make that the objective standard. If it's crappy memes, then prohibit posting pictures or memes. Objective standards that apply no matter the political views. Otherwise, let people filter the crap out as they decide. Not a big fan of trying to get people banned.
Unit2Sucks
How long do you want to ignore this user?
calbear93 said:

Unit2Sucks said:

Trump has been publicly stupid for so long, which has led to a treasure trove of idiotic statements. Here's one particularly funny one.



You know who are the dumbest people? Those without intellectual curiosity or learning agility. You know who think they have everything figured out? Dumb teenagers.
I can only imagine how dumb Trump was as a teenager.
calbear93
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Unit2Sucks said:

calbear93 said:

Unit2Sucks said:

Trump has been publicly stupid for so long, which has led to a treasure trove of idiotic statements. Here's one particularly funny one.



You know who are the dumbest people? Those without intellectual curiosity or learning agility. You know who think they have everything figured out? Dumb teenagers.
I can only imagine how dumb Trump was as a teenager.
I kind of get the sense that he is not an agile learner, so I wouldn't be surprised if he is no smarter now than he was as a teenager.

I will give him one thing. He is an excellent marketer. Looking at shameless idiots like Cruz and Rubio who are now bending their knees in front of him when he mocked their manhood shows me that he has won the marketing game. That is pretty amazing that he has made slaves of this former enemies, and they will sacrifice their pride and manhood to serve his whims.
DiabloWags
How long do you want to ignore this user?
calbear93 said:

Unit2Sucks said:

calbear93 said:

Unit2Sucks said:

Trump has been publicly stupid for so long, which has led to a treasure trove of idiotic statements. Here's one particularly funny one.



You know who are the dumbest people? Those without intellectual curiosity or learning agility. You know who think they have everything figured out? Dumb teenagers.
I can only imagine how dumb Trump was as a teenager.
I kind of get the sense that he is not an agile learner, so I wouldn't be surprised if he is no smarter now than he was as a teenager.

I will give him one thing. He is an excellent marketer. Looking at shameless idiots like Cruz and Rubio who are now bending their knees in front of him when he mocked their manhood shows me that he has won the marketing game. That is pretty amazing that he has made slaves of this former enemies, and they will sacrifice their pride and manhood to serve his whims.

It's a shame that this is the "best" that our political system has come up with.

Had I been up there on that GOP Primary Debate Stage and I was Rubio I would have walked over to Trump and poured a bottle of water all over him, Too bad in reality, "Little Marco" is actually "Little Marco". (5-09)

Trump "labeled" each one of his GOP challengers and got away with it.
That's how dumb this country is.
Dumberica!

Donald Trump Hilariously Mocks Sweaty 'Wreck' Marco Rubio (mediaite.com)
calbear93
How long do you want to ignore this user?
DiabloWags said:

calbear93 said:

Unit2Sucks said:

calbear93 said:

Unit2Sucks said:

Trump has been publicly stupid for so long, which has led to a treasure trove of idiotic statements. Here's one particularly funny one.



You know who are the dumbest people? Those without intellectual curiosity or learning agility. You know who think they have everything figured out? Dumb teenagers.
I can only imagine how dumb Trump was as a teenager.
I kind of get the sense that he is not an agile learner, so I wouldn't be surprised if he is no smarter now than he was as a teenager.

I will give him one thing. He is an excellent marketer. Looking at shameless idiots like Cruz and Rubio who are now bending their knees in front of him when he mocked their manhood shows me that he has won the marketing game. That is pretty amazing that he has made slaves of this former enemies, and they will sacrifice their pride and manhood to serve his whims.

It's a shame that this is the "best" that our political system has come up with.
Had I been up there on that GOP Primary Debate Stage and I was Rubio I would have walked over to Trump and poured a bottle of water all over him, Too bad in reality, "Little Marco" is actually "Little Marco".

Trump "labeled" each one of his GOP challengers and got away with it.
That's how dumb this country is.
Dumberica!

Donald Trump Hilariously Mocks Sweaty 'Wreck' Marco Rubio (mediaite.com)

The fact is that he came up with names that stuck. The only one he didn't do that successfully was Biden.

He knows how to tweak the idiocy meter among those who are inclined to view him as a savior. Once he has tweaked that all the way, they will follow him over the cliff, swallowing any amount of lies and anti-Americanism.
DiabloWags
How long do you want to ignore this user?
calbear93 said:



The fact is that he came up with names that stuck. The only one he didn't do that successfully was Biden.

He knows how to tweak the idiocy meter among those who are inclined to view him as a savior. Once he has tweaked that all the way, they will follow him over the cliff, swallowing any amount of lies and anti-Americanism.

True.

It's downright scary how Americans have allowed themselves to become part of a CULT that has no problem trashing and undermining our most hallowed institutions. The GOP should be ashamed of themselves.


Unit2Sucks
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Looking forward to BG defending this.

 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.