Well, that’s literally true, but as volume 1 of the Mueller points out, there was plenty of rational to worry about it.
The easiest example is the Trump tower meeting. How far fetched could it be given we know they were eagerly taking meetings with Russians talking about helping their campaign?
no evidence do you have to support that position. it's been explained for four years. mueller report is my evidence. you have no support evidence. why?
No one likes JOE or ho enough to act on their part (or vote for them) besides the chinese and billionaires who own them-----
BLM and anti-fa are acting under the control of the chinese and billionaires as well and they have been attacking innocent people and businessses all year long.
Protesting our congress critters is not attacking innocent people.
Well, that’s literally true, but as volume 1 of the Mueller points out, there was plenty of rational to worry about it.
The easiest example is the Trump tower meeting. How far fetched could it be given we know they were eagerly taking meetings with Russians talking about helping their campaign?
No one likes JOE or ho enough to act on their part (or vote for them) besides the chinese and billionaires who own them-----
BLM and anti-fa are acting under the control of the chinese and billionaires as well and they have been attacking innocent people and businessses all year long.
Protesting our congress critters is not attacking innocent people.
Well, that’s literally true, but as volume 1 of the Mueller points out, there was plenty of rational to worry about it.
The easiest example is the Trump tower meeting. How far fetched could it be given we know they were eagerly taking meetings with Russians talking about helping their campaign?
They sure as hell were eager to meet with the Russians. The topic they expected was dirt on Clinton. The problem wasn’t that they shouldn’t be cooperating with a foreign adversary to win an election, the problem was that they weren’t getting enough help.
At a minimum it demonstrates a willingness to do exactly the thing you say it’s ridiculous to accuse them of doing.
And that’s IF we accept their version of events at face value.
Don’t stray from the topic. I’m saying this meeting alone makes it rational to worry that the Trump campaign might have cooperated with Russia to win the election.
Well, that’s literally true, but as volume 1 of the Mueller points out, there was plenty of rational to worry about it.
The easiest example is the Trump tower meeting. How far fetched could it be given we know they were eagerly taking meetings with Russians talking about helping their campaign?
They sure as hell were eager to meet with the Russians. The topic they expected was dirt on Clinton. The problem wasn’t that they shouldn’t be cooperating with a foreign adversary to win an election, the problem was that they weren’t getting enough help.
At a minimum it demonstrates a willingness to do exactly the thing you say it’s ridiculous to accuse them of doing.
And that’s IF we accept their version of events at face value.
Don’t stray from the topic. I’m saying this meeting alone makes it rational to worry that the Trump campaign might have cooperated with Russia to win the election.
and why are you ignoring the fact that bidens son works directly for the chinese government and got a 5 million dollar pay off in the way of a forgivable loan,,,
They cancel American citizens yet murdering dictators around the world can post any damn thing they want, including calling for the destruction of this county. Of course you commie are cool with that, RIGHT?!!
Trumpism may share some things with fascism like ultra-nationalism, racial "purity" and authoritarianism, but Trumpism was more personalist. It began and hopefully ended with Trump. Although Hawley and Cruz tried to capture the less savory characteristics. Cotton and Crenshaw may be trying to co-opt some of the more high toned more libertarian leaning positions. Lindsey Graham is simply shameless whoring. LOL
I sorta disagree. imo Trump just latched onto some white supremacist leaning ideas of Bannon that Trump used to promote himself. That was the central problem of Trumpism; he just grabbed hold of any issue that he thought would promote "him." So he's all in with neocons on Saudi Arabia Yemen and Iran but all out on Syria. And he was both in and out on Iran. His own taxcuts promoted globalization and then his trade wars were against.
And even now the Trumpistas are upset about a stolen election that wasn't stolen. They'd do better to want a party that was not for foreign entanglements unless the other western democracies were all in too and our purpose was clear and achievable, less govt, less spending. And even then they'd still run the risk of again being the tool of the 1%
and why are you ignoring the fact that bidens son works directly for the chinese government and got a 5 million dollar pay off in the way of a forgivable loan,,,
For the most part, it was proven they did not cooperate thanks to the special counsel investigation with Trump railed against for years and came dangerously close to derailing only to be stopped by his subordinates who either ignored his orders or threatened to quit rather than carry them out (seen Mueller’s volume 2).
My only point is that it was a rational concern because there’s facts that make it so.
Hunter Biden never worked directly for the Chinese government. It’s factually incorrect.
They cancel American citizens yet murdering dictators around the world can post any damn thing they want, including calling for the destruction of this county. Of course you commie are cool with that, RIGHT?!!
and why are you ignoring the fact that bidens son works directly for the chinese government and got a 5 million dollar pay off in the way of a forgivable loan,,,
For the most part, it was proven they did not cooperate thanks to the special counsel investigation with Trump railed against for years and came dangerously close to derailing only to be stopped by his subordinates who either ignored his orders or threatened to quit rather than carry them out (seen Mueller’s volume 2).
My only point is that it was a rational concern because there’s facts that make it so.
Hunter Biden never worked directly for the Chinese government. It’s factually incorrect.
There are opinions, and then there are bald-faced lies that give pathetic rightwing nut-jobs a hard-on and get 'em to assault Congress and such...
The Continentals probably shut-down Benedict Arnold sympathizers, as well... following the lead of the Apostles... who shut-down Judas Iscariot fans...
Or like when the US shut down the Amerikan Bund after we jumped into WWII...
It's necessary to shut down foaming-at-the-mouth traitorous mad dogs, and...
What the trump Nazis fail to understand are the "terms of service" restrictions privately owned Internet companies require subscribers to follow. Those companies can censor anyone they want, and there is no violation of anyone's First Amendment right to free speech.
This fact has been pointed out to trump's Nazis countless times on these and other message boards, but it never seems to penetrate their granite block skulls.
Because we can't seem to get it through your granite skull that they enjoy section 230 immunity because they claim to be a non-biased entity. If they are going to censor content then they should be able to get sued based on that censorship and the content that is posted there. Now they're just a publisher like any other news site.
On Tuesday, Twitter appended a fact-check label to a presidential tweet about the fraud risk associated with mail-in voting. Just beneath, it added an exclamation urging users to “get the facts abo…
Yes it is. There was a single case before the SCOTUS that ruled someone with the KKK who called to incite violence at a rally committed a crime. Later the U.S. Supreme Court reversed Brandenburg's conviction, holding that government cannot constitutionally punish abstract advocacy of force or law violation.
Oliver Wendell Holmes made the analogy during a controversial Supreme Court case that was overturned more than 40 years ago.
www.theatlantic.com
"In 1969, the Supreme Court's decision in Brandenburg v. Ohio effectively overturned Schenck and any authority the case still carried. There, the Court held that inflammatory speech--and even speech advocating violence by members of the Ku Klux Klan--is protected under the First Amendment, unless the speech "is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action"
nypost.com
www.theatlantic.com
en.wikipedia.org
