Off Topic
Sponsored by

Official Trump / Vance Administration Thread

33,116 Views | 460 Replies | Last: 1 hr ago by Aunburdened
dajo9
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to BearlySane88 • 9:38a, 10/4/26
BearlySane88 said:
dajo9 said:
BearlySane88 said:
dajo9 said:
BearlySane88 said:
dajo9 said:
BearlySane88 said:
dajo9 said:
When you're being texted invites for "free *****" for a woman your crew gave ketamine to you are being invited to a rape.


Not necessarily. You're making a lot of assumptions. I don't really want to know but my guess is you haven't had a lot of group/party/open sexual adventures.


This is not that. This was predatory. She was alone in the sense that she was the only woman involved at the frat house doing things nobody would have reasonably believed she would consent to prior to taking a very strong and illegal drug.


She went over and started before taking ketamine. It's not really accurate to blame it on that. You also have no idea what this woman would have or wouldn't have done. All we can go off of is what she did do.

I've seen people do things you would never guess they would do.



It is because when somebody is drug addled and you invite new people into the situation to have their way with her, that is rape


Actually that's not necessarily true. In New York, simply being drunk or under the influence of drugs does not necessarily mean a person is legally incapable of consenting to sex.


I didnt say it did. If she'd had sex only with the people she got incapacitated with that would not be rape. But when they started inviting others that is rape. Have you ever had sex while somewhat incapacitated? I know I have.


Again, not necessarily rape. If she was aware and agreeing to it (consenting) it's not rape. There's nothing inherently illegal with inviting more people to join your sexcapade. I have no clue if it was rape or not, I wasn't there and I don't have all the facts and neither do you. There is plausible evidence to view this situation either way. Like I said before, ****ty situation all around and I hope the truth comes to light and justice served either way it falls.


You'd feel otherwise if you got incapacitated with a partner and then she invited some guy in to have his way with you
Reply Quote
5
SBGold
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to dajo9 • 10:03a, 10/4/26
Great point
"I Abide by Old and New Rules, and I Never Personally Attack. Gambling is illegal at Bushwood, sir, and I never slice."
Reply Quote
5
BearlySane88
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to dajo9 • 10:13a, 10/4/26
dajo9 said:
BearlySane88 said:
dajo9 said:
BearlySane88 said:
dajo9 said:
BearlySane88 said:
dajo9 said:
BearlySane88 said:
dajo9 said:
When you're being texted invites for "free *****" for a woman your crew gave ketamine to you are being invited to a rape.


Not necessarily. You're making a lot of assumptions. I don't really want to know but my guess is you haven't had a lot of group/party/open sexual adventures.


This is not that. This was predatory. She was alone in the sense that she was the only woman involved at the frat house doing things nobody would have reasonably believed she would consent to prior to taking a very strong and illegal drug.


She went over and started before taking ketamine. It's not really accurate to blame it on that. You also have no idea what this woman would have or wouldn't have done. All we can go off of is what she did do.

I've seen people do things you would never guess they would do.



It is because when somebody is drug addled and you invite new people into the situation to have their way with her, that is rape


Actually that's not necessarily true. In New York, simply being drunk or under the influence of drugs does not necessarily mean a person is legally incapable of consenting to sex.


I didnt say it did. If she'd had sex only with the people she got incapacitated with that would not be rape. But when they started inviting others that is rape. Have you ever had sex while somewhat incapacitated? I know I have.


Again, not necessarily rape. If she was aware and agreeing to it (consenting) it's not rape. There's nothing inherently illegal with inviting more people to join your sexcapade. I have no clue if it was rape or not, I wasn't there and I don't have all the facts and neither do you. There is plausible evidence to view this situation either way. Like I said before, ****ty situation all around and I hope the truth comes to light and justice served either way it falls.


You'd feel otherwise if you got incapacitated with a partner and then she invited some guy in to have his way with you


If it was without my consent, yes. We weren't there, we don't know what consent was given or not.
Reply Quote
4
BearlySane88
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to SBGold • 10:13a, 10/4/26
SBGold said:
Great point


No it's really not because he's changed his argument three times within this conversation.
Reply Quote
6
dajo9
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to BearlySane88 • 10:25a, 10/4/26
BearlySane88 said:
SBGold said:
Great point


No it's really not because he's changed his argument three times within this conversation.


Ive never changed my argument in this conversation
Reply Quote
4
BearlySane88
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to dajo9 • 10:43a, 10/4/26
dajo9 said:
BearlySane88 said:
SBGold said:
Great point


No it's really not because he's changed his argument three times within this conversation.


Ive never changed my argument in this conversation


You keep changing your basis of your argument.
Reply Quote
6
dajo9
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to BearlySane88 • 10:48a, 10/4/26
BearlySane88 said:
dajo9 said:
BearlySane88 said:
SBGold said:
Great point


No it's really not because he's changed his argument three times within this conversation.


Ive never changed my argument in this conversation


You keep changing your basis of your argument.


No. Just because you keep saying things not pertinent to my point doesn't mean I've changed anything.
Reply Quote
7
BearlySane88
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to dajo9 • 11:49a, 10/4/26
dajo9 said:
BearlySane88 said:
dajo9 said:
BearlySane88 said:
SBGold said:
Great point


No it's really not because he's changed his argument three times within this conversation.


Ive never changed my argument in this conversation


You keep changing your basis of your argument.


No. Just because you keep saying things not pertinent to my point doesn't mean I've changed anything.


I've directly responded to your post every time lol
Reply Quote
6
DiabloWags
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
2:33p, 10/4/26
Say hello to Beni Rae Harmony.
The new White House assistant press secretary.

Age 24.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/vile-image-emerges-of-new-white-house-press-aide-beni-rae-harmony/?source=facebook&via=desktop&title=Vile+Image+Emerges+of+New+White+House+Press+Aide&fbclid=IwdGRjcAUvgbBjbGNrBS-Bn2V4dG4DYWVtAjExAHBkb2YFc3J0YwZhcHBfaWQMMzUwNjg1NTMxNzI4AAEefaBTZGaaHG_elW13jVFddPQVpUVDLYKhjd9O34Ay4V5eWtcXY-8Wi4JKT9o_aem_mOfnSZoyS_JAGbuj6QpUBw
It's a CULT.

Reply Quote
3
1 edit
bearister
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to DiabloWags • 2:53p, 10/4/26

Well, she certainly appears to be possessed of the full set of female Bona Fide Occupational Qualifications (BFOQ) for a position in the Trump Administration.
“Cancel my subscription to the Resurrection
Send my credentials to the House of Detention
I got some friends inside”
—Jim Morrison

“I love Cal deeply, by the way, what are the directions to The Portal from Sproul Plaza?”
Reply Quote
4
BearlySane88
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to bearister • 2:55p, 10/4/26
bearister said:

Well, she certainly appears to be possessed of the full set of female Bona Fide Occupational Qualifications (BFOQ) for a position in the Trump Administration.


Make America Fine Again!
Reply Quote
4
oski003
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to dajo9 • 3:25p, 10/4/26
dajo9 said:
BearlySane88 said:
dajo9 said:
BearlySane88 said:
dajo9 said:
BearlySane88 said:
dajo9 said:
BearlySane88 said:
dajo9 said:
When you're being texted invites for "free *****" for a woman your crew gave ketamine to you are being invited to a rape.


Not necessarily. You're making a lot of assumptions. I don't really want to know but my guess is you haven't had a lot of group/party/open sexual adventures.


This is not that. This was predatory. She was alone in the sense that she was the only woman involved at the frat house doing things nobody would have reasonably believed she would consent to prior to taking a very strong and illegal drug.


She went over and started before taking ketamine. It's not really accurate to blame it on that. You also have no idea what this woman would have or wouldn't have done. All we can go off of is what she did do.

I've seen people do things you would never guess they would do.



It is because when somebody is drug addled and you invite new people into the situation to have their way with her, that is rape


Actually that's not necessarily true. In New York, simply being drunk or under the influence of drugs does not necessarily mean a person is legally incapable of consenting to sex.


I didnt say it did. If she'd had sex only with the people she got incapacitated with that would not be rape. But when they started inviting others that is rape. Have you ever had sex while somewhat incapacitated? I know I have.


Again, not necessarily rape. If she was aware and agreeing to it (consenting) it's not rape. There's nothing inherently illegal with inviting more people to join your sexcapade. I have no clue if it was rape or not, I wasn't there and I don't have all the facts and neither do you. There is plausible evidence to view this situation either way. Like I said before, ****ty situation all around and I hope the truth comes to light and justice served either way it falls.


You'd feel otherwise if you got incapacitated with a partner and then she invited some guy in to have his way with you


This parallel would only make sense if you were bi and already had mmf threesomes and were actively trying to get the other guy hard who was too drunk to get it up like Jane Doe was. The one thing Jane Doe was unwilling to do was anal, which the guys respected. That is why she was only willing to have sex with two at a time.
Reply Quote
6
sycasey
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to bearister • 3:56p, 10/4/26
bearister said:

Well, she certainly appears to be possessed of the full set of female Bona Fide Occupational Qualifications (BFOQ) for a position in the Trump Administration.

She's not blonde, so there's a bit of diversity.
Reply Quote
4
DiabloWags
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to sycasey • 5:00p, 10/4/26
sycasey said:
bearister said:

Well, she certainly appears to be possessed of the full set of female Bona Fide Occupational Qualifications (BFOQ) for a position in the Trump Administration.

She's not blonde, so there's a bit of diversity.


I've noticed that she does have one helluva potty-mouth.
Is that a bonus?
It's a CULT.

Reply Quote
3
SBGold
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
8:39a, 10/5/26
Phil Collins is a legend, I appreciate him:

https://nypost.com/2026/10/05/entertainment/phil-collins-blasts-trump-as-nasty-teases-america-song/

VOTE BLUE AND VOTE BECERRA
"I Abide by Old and New Rules, and I Never Personally Attack. Gambling is illegal at Bushwood, sir, and I never slice."
Reply Quote
2
SBGold
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
4:27p, 10/5/26
Another Trump rally for struggling MAGA candidates?

Bad move but I'm ok with it: https://www.ms.now/news/trump-nebraska-ricketts-senate

VOTE BLUE AND VOTE TALARICO
"I Abide by Old and New Rules, and I Never Personally Attack. Gambling is illegal at Bushwood, sir, and I never slice."
Reply Quote
3
BearlySane88
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
4:37p, 10/5/26
Somebody please tell me again who the dictator president was? If any dems here actually cared about the stuff they cry about, we would have seen 100 posts on this already.

Reply Quote
6
1 edit
sycasey
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to BearlySane88 • 4:46p, 10/5/26
BearlySane88 said:
Somebody please tell me again who the dictator president was? If any dems here actually cared about the stuff they cry about, we would have seen 100 posts on this already.


I understand the privacy concerns here, but how does this make anyone a dictator?
Reply Quote
1
SBGold
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
4:50p, 10/5/26
Paxton and Trump face off, DJT supplies a ton of personal insults to Paxie:

https://www.thenation.com/article/politics/trump-dallas-midterms-gop/

VOTE BLUE AND VOTE GAVIN
"I Abide by Old and New Rules, and I Never Personally Attack. Gambling is illegal at Bushwood, sir, and I never slice."
Reply Quote
3
BearlySane88
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to sycasey • 4:51p, 10/5/26
sycasey said:
BearlySane88 said:
Somebody please tell me again who the dictator president was? If any dems here actually cared about the stuff they cry about, we would have seen 100 posts on this already.


I understand the privacy concerns here, but how does this make anyone a dictator?


A sitting administration's (Biden's) federal law enforcement apparatus secretly mapped communications involving a leading advisor to their main political opponent, including contacts with lawyers.

Put Trump's name in there instead of Biden's and you're telling me we wouldn't have 15 threads about how much of a dictator he is?
Reply Quote
6
1 edit
sycasey
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to BearlySane88 • 4:56p, 10/5/26
BearlySane88 said:
sycasey said:
BearlySane88 said:
Somebody please tell me again who the dictator president was? If any dems here actually cared about the stuff they cry about, we would have seen 100 posts on this already.


I understand the privacy concerns here, but how does this make anyone a dictator?


A sitting administration's (Biden's) federal law enforcement apparatus secretly mapped communications involving a leading advisor to their main political opponent, including contacts with lawyers.

Put Trump's name in there instead of Biden's and you're telling me we wouldn't have 15 threads about how much of a dictator he is?

We definitely would have had threads complaining about it, but again I'm asking how this meets the definition of "dictator," regardless of who does it. Is there evidence of Biden personally ordering this? Or did it just happen as part of a (possibly overzealous) criminal investigation?

The thing with Trump is that you can usually find some evidence of him directly ordering it, because he often just says stuff out loud in public.
Reply Quote
3
BearlySane88
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to sycasey • 4:58p, 10/5/26
sycasey said:
BearlySane88 said:
sycasey said:
BearlySane88 said:
Somebody please tell me again who the dictator president was? If any dems here actually cared about the stuff they cry about, we would have seen 100 posts on this already.


I understand the privacy concerns here, but how does this make anyone a dictator?


A sitting administration's (Biden's) federal law enforcement apparatus secretly mapped communications involving a leading advisor to their main political opponent, including contacts with lawyers.

Put Trump's name in there instead of Biden's and you're telling me we wouldn't have 15 threads about how much of a dictator he is?

We definitely would have had threads complaining about it, but again I'm asking how this meets the definition of "dictator," regardless of who does it. Is there evidence of Biden personally ordering this? Or did it just happen as part of a (possibly overzealous) criminal investigation?

The thing with Trump is that you can usually find some evidence of him directly ordering it, because he often just says stuff out loud in public.


Well we know Biden wasn't personally ordering much of anything. His staff on the other hand
Reply Quote
4
sycasey
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to BearlySane88 • 5:06p, 10/5/26
BearlySane88 said:
sycasey said:
BearlySane88 said:
sycasey said:
BearlySane88 said:
Somebody please tell me again who the dictator president was? If any dems here actually cared about the stuff they cry about, we would have seen 100 posts on this already.


I understand the privacy concerns here, but how does this make anyone a dictator?


A sitting administration's (Biden's) federal law enforcement apparatus secretly mapped communications involving a leading advisor to their main political opponent, including contacts with lawyers.

Put Trump's name in there instead of Biden's and you're telling me we wouldn't have 15 threads about how much of a dictator he is?

We definitely would have had threads complaining about it, but again I'm asking how this meets the definition of "dictator," regardless of who does it. Is there evidence of Biden personally ordering this? Or did it just happen as part of a (possibly overzealous) criminal investigation?

The thing with Trump is that you can usually find some evidence of him directly ordering it, because he often just says stuff out loud in public.


Well we know Biden wasn't personally ordering much of anything. His staff on the other hand

So it sounds like dictatorship doesn't apply.
Reply Quote
3
BearlySane88
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to sycasey • 5:12p, 10/5/26
sycasey said:
BearlySane88 said:
sycasey said:
BearlySane88 said:
sycasey said:
BearlySane88 said:
Somebody please tell me again who the dictator president was? If any dems here actually cared about the stuff they cry about, we would have seen 100 posts on this already.


I understand the privacy concerns here, but how does this make anyone a dictator?


A sitting administration's (Biden's) federal law enforcement apparatus secretly mapped communications involving a leading advisor to their main political opponent, including contacts with lawyers.

Put Trump's name in there instead of Biden's and you're telling me we wouldn't have 15 threads about how much of a dictator he is?

We definitely would have had threads complaining about it, but again I'm asking how this meets the definition of "dictator," regardless of who does it. Is there evidence of Biden personally ordering this? Or did it just happen as part of a (possibly overzealous) criminal investigation?

The thing with Trump is that you can usually find some evidence of him directly ordering it, because he often just says stuff out loud in public.


Well we know Biden wasn't personally ordering much of anything. His staff on the other hand

So it sounds like dictatorship doesn't apply.


Dictatorship by proxy lol and I was being facetious and acting how 90% of this board would act if the roles were reversed.
Reply Quote
5
dajo9
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
5:39p, 10/5/26
This is another Trump fake outrage issue. The FBI was investigating a crime it believed Trump committed. The family was monitored to time the search of the house right. Much ado about nothing.
Reply Quote
2
BearlySane88
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to dajo9 • 5:50p, 10/5/26
dajo9 said:
This is another Trump fake outrage issue. The FBI was investigating a crime it believed Trump committed. The family was monitored to time the search of the house right. Much ado about nothing.


Easy to brush off when it's not against democrats.
Reply Quote
5
dajo9
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to BearlySane88 • 5:59p, 10/5/26
BearlySane88 said:
dajo9 said:
This is another Trump fake outrage issue. The FBI was investigating a crime it believed Trump committed. The family was monitored to time the search of the house right. Much ado about nothing.


Easy to brush off when it's not against democrats.


Republicans have been engineering fake scandals over nothing against Democrats since the 1990s. That's nothing new - from Ken Starr to John Durham and everybody in between. But those were bogus investigations that went nowhere over trivial matters.

The John Smith investigation was a legit criminal investigation stopped by a Trump sycophant Judge. The fake investigations into Democrats aren't going to stop. I'm under no illusions a fascist movement will be stopped by appeals to decency.
Reply Quote
2
BearlySane88
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to dajo9 • 6:01p, 10/5/26
dajo9 said:
BearlySane88 said:
dajo9 said:
This is another Trump fake outrage issue. The FBI was investigating a crime it believed Trump committed. The family was monitored to time the search of the house right. Much ado about nothing.


Easy to brush off when it's not against democrats.


Republicans have been engineering fake scandals over nothing against Democrats since the 1990s. That's nothing new - from Ken Starr to John Durham and everybody in between. But those were bogus investigations that went nowhere over trivial matters.

The John Smith investigation was a legit criminal investigation stopped by a Trump sycophant Judge. The fake investigations into Democrats aren't going to stop. I'm under no illusions a fascist movement will be stopped by appeals to decency.


It's funny how you brush over all the fake investigations by democrats like Russiagate. Good thing we don't have a fascist movement on our hands. Your flare for the dramatics is amusing, at best.
Reply Quote
5
dajo9
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to BearlySane88 • 6:04p, 10/5/26
BearlySane88 said:
dajo9 said:
BearlySane88 said:
dajo9 said:
This is another Trump fake outrage issue. The FBI was investigating a crime it believed Trump committed. The family was monitored to time the search of the house right. Much ado about nothing.


Easy to brush off when it's not against democrats.


Republicans have been engineering fake scandals over nothing against Democrats since the 1990s. That's nothing new - from Ken Starr to John Durham and everybody in between. But those were bogus investigations that went nowhere over trivial matters.

The John Smith investigation was a legit criminal investigation stopped by a Trump sycophant Judge. The fake investigations into Democrats aren't going to stop. I'm under no illusions a fascist movement will be stopped by appeals to decency.


It's funny how you brush over all the fake investigations by democrats like Russiagate. Good thing we don't have a fascist movement on our hands. Your flare for the dramatics is amusing, at best.


Russiagate was legitimate and Mueller showed that
Reply Quote
1
BearlySane88
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to dajo9 • 6:06p, 10/5/26
dajo9 said:
BearlySane88 said:
dajo9 said:
BearlySane88 said:
dajo9 said:
This is another Trump fake outrage issue. The FBI was investigating a crime it believed Trump committed. The family was monitored to time the search of the house right. Much ado about nothing.


Easy to brush off when it's not against democrats.


Republicans have been engineering fake scandals over nothing against Democrats since the 1990s. That's nothing new - from Ken Starr to John Durham and everybody in between. But those were bogus investigations that went nowhere over trivial matters.

The John Smith investigation was a legit criminal investigation stopped by a Trump sycophant Judge. The fake investigations into Democrats aren't going to stop. I'm under no illusions a fascist movement will be stopped by appeals to decency.


It's funny how you brush over all the fake investigations by democrats like Russiagate. Good thing we don't have a fascist movement on our hands. Your flare for the dramatics is amusing, at best.


Russiagate was legitimate and Mueller showed that


Oh lord. God bless your heart.
Reply Quote
5
Aunburdened
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to dajo9 • 6:07p, 10/5/26
dajo9 said:
BearlySane88 said:
dajo9 said:
BearlySane88 said:
dajo9 said:
This is another Trump fake outrage issue. The FBI was investigating a crime it believed Trump committed. The family was monitored to time the search of the house right. Much ado about nothing.


Easy to brush off when it's not against democrats.


Republicans have been engineering fake scandals over nothing against Democrats since the 1990s. That's nothing new - from Ken Starr to John Durham and everybody in between. But those were bogus investigations that went nowhere over trivial matters.

The John Smith investigation was a legit criminal investigation stopped by a Trump sycophant Judge. The fake investigations into Democrats aren't going to stop. I'm under no illusions a fascist movement will be stopped by appeals to decency.


It's funny how you brush over all the fake investigations by democrats like Russiagate. Good thing we don't have a fascist movement on our hands. Your flare for the dramatics is amusing, at best.


Russiagate was legitimate and Mueller showed that




Sycophant
Aun "unburdened by what has been" Bear is the OG legend
- DaddyLegend 9/6/2026
Reply Quote
4
1 edit
dajo9
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to BearlySane88 • 6:21p, 10/5/26
BearlySane88 said:
dajo9 said:
BearlySane88 said:
dajo9 said:
BearlySane88 said:
dajo9 said:
This is another Trump fake outrage issue. The FBI was investigating a crime it believed Trump committed. The family was monitored to time the search of the house right. Much ado about nothing.


Easy to brush off when it's not against democrats.


Republicans have been engineering fake scandals over nothing against Democrats since the 1990s. That's nothing new - from Ken Starr to John Durham and everybody in between. But those were bogus investigations that went nowhere over trivial matters.

The John Smith investigation was a legit criminal investigation stopped by a Trump sycophant Judge. The fake investigations into Democrats aren't going to stop. I'm under no illusions a fascist movement will be stopped by appeals to decency.


It's funny how you brush over all the fake investigations by democrats like Russiagate. Good thing we don't have a fascist movement on our hands. Your flare for the dramatics is amusing, at best.


Russiagate was legitimate and Mueller showed that


Oh lord. God bless your heart.


I'll also add that the Mueller investigation wasn't a Democratic investigation. All the people who started it were Republicans. They found much interaction between Trump and the Russians and an effort by Trump to obstruct the investigation.
Reply Quote
2
BearlySane88
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to dajo9 • 6:24p, 10/5/26
dajo9 said:
BearlySane88 said:
dajo9 said:
BearlySane88 said:
dajo9 said:
BearlySane88 said:
dajo9 said:
This is another Trump fake outrage issue. The FBI was investigating a crime it believed Trump committed. The family was monitored to time the search of the house right. Much ado about nothing.


Easy to brush off when it's not against democrats.


Republicans have been engineering fake scandals over nothing against Democrats since the 1990s. That's nothing new - from Ken Starr to John Durham and everybody in between. But those were bogus investigations that went nowhere over trivial matters.

The John Smith investigation was a legit criminal investigation stopped by a Trump sycophant Judge. The fake investigations into Democrats aren't going to stop. I'm under no illusions a fascist movement will be stopped by appeals to decency.


It's funny how you brush over all the fake investigations by democrats like Russiagate. Good thing we don't have a fascist movement on our hands. Your flare for the dramatics is amusing, at best.


Russiagate was legitimate and Mueller showed that


Oh lord. God bless your heart.


I'll also add that the Mueller investigation wasn't a Democratic investigation. All the people who started it were Republicans. They found much interaction between Trump and the Russians and an effort by Trump to obstruct the investigation.


Unless you're adding that it was a fake investigation, it's not really relevant.
Reply Quote
6
dajo9
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to BearlySane88 • 6:24p, 10/5/26
BearlySane88 said:
dajo9 said:
BearlySane88 said:
dajo9 said:
BearlySane88 said:
dajo9 said:
BearlySane88 said:
dajo9 said:
This is another Trump fake outrage issue. The FBI was investigating a crime it believed Trump committed. The family was monitored to time the search of the house right. Much ado about nothing.


Easy to brush off when it's not against democrats.


Republicans have been engineering fake scandals over nothing against Democrats since the 1990s. That's nothing new - from Ken Starr to John Durham and everybody in between. But those were bogus investigations that went nowhere over trivial matters.

The John Smith investigation was a legit criminal investigation stopped by a Trump sycophant Judge. The fake investigations into Democrats aren't going to stop. I'm under no illusions a fascist movement will be stopped by appeals to decency.


It's funny how you brush over all the fake investigations by democrats like Russiagate. Good thing we don't have a fascist movement on our hands. Your flare for the dramatics is amusing, at best.


Russiagate was legitimate and Mueller showed that


Oh lord. God bless your heart.


I'll also add that the Mueller investigation wasn't a Democratic investigation. All the people who started it were Republicans. They found much interaction between Trump and the Russians and an effort by Trump to obstruct the investigation.


Unless you're adding that it was a fake investigation, it's not really relevant.


I guess you dont think Putin influencing our elections is a big deal.
Reply Quote
3
sycasey
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
6:37p, 10/5/26
Problem with saying "Russiagate was a hoax" is you need to define your terms there. Did anyone prove that Trump was personally colluding with Russia? No. Was it a legitimate thing to investigate? Yes.
Reply Quote
4
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.