Paying people off to avoid a scandal is perfectly legal

[Fort Fun Indiana]

I'm not sure why, but it seems the Democrats think that paying off a woman to be quiet about a scandal is somehow illegal. Well, it isn't.

Meanwhile, I'm wondering what any of this has to do with collusion with Russia...

It's legal, except for when it isn't, such as when a candidate does it in the run up to an election and does not report it as a campaign expense or as a loan to his campaign. As michael cohen just found out.

Wrong. It's legal even then.

Haha......ooookay, professor. Have you informed michael cohen and his legal team of your expert opinion ? Better send a memo to the judge and prosecutors, while youre at it.

 

[Lewdog]

It is the same thing. Only difference is the U.S. government keeps it for themselves, and South Africa is giving some to Blacks in order to use as farm land.

Do you have any idea what Apartheid was? At all? Do you know what happened to the former government that would KILL and punish blacks for ordinary behavior during Apartheid?

It's not the same thing. Only a Stalinist would claim it is. Apartheid doesn't justify stealing private property and murdering the owners. Your moral compass is seriously askew if you believe it does. The Apartheid government was far more benign than the current nest of Stalinist thugs. Blacks immigrated into South Africa the whole time Apartheid was in force. Man, it must have been so horrible!

The land blacks are taking has been in the families of the owners for generation. The only reason it can grow crops at all is because of all the hard work and money the owners invested in it. The blacks who are taking it did nothing to entitle themselves to it. Not a ******* thing. Most of them are not even native to South Africa.

Lol, it IS the same thing, and the killings of farmers has gone DOWN.

You are ignoring the point of me mentioning Apartheid. Again, do you know what happened to those in government that took part in Apartheid???

It's not the same thing. Only a moral leper would equate the two. Apartheid is over, so it's irrelevant. Getting even with ****** is not a legitimate government function, you Stalinist douchebag. Any government that does that is a tyranny, and any who makes excuses for it is a thug.

It's not irrelevant, it proves a point that you continue to ignore. I knew you wouldn't know what happened after Apartheid because you don't pay to attention when people you don't like do fair shit.

They did what is called Truth and Reconciliation Hearings. When Blacks took power in South Africa, they didn't act out in a vindictive manner. No they allowed people that had committed horrible crimes against to come before the commission and admit their acts in return for forgiveness and amnesty.

What does that have to do with black thugs stealing the land of totally innocent farmers and then murdering them?

What "horrible crimes" are you referring to? Committed against who?

What does it have to do with it? It has EVERYTHING to do with it. If Blacks had any time that could even remotely be called acceptable for them to commit violence against whites it would have been after the end of Apartheid, and it didn't happen. What is going on now is NOTHING like how you are trying to make it. After several years of widespread suppression and abuse, the Blacks of South Africa instead turned the other cheek and looked to change their country for the better. Yet here you are trying to spread a lie that there is widespread killings of white farmers by Blacks, and that isn't true.

 

[bripat9643]

I'm not sure why, but it seems the Democrats think that paying off a woman to be quiet about a scandal is somehow illegal. Well, it isn't.

Meanwhile, I'm wondering what any of this has to do with collusion with Russia...

It's legal, except for when it isn't, such as when a candidate does it in the run up to an election and does not report it as a campaign expense or as a loan to his campaign. As michael cohen just found out.

Wrong. It's legal even then.

Haha......ooookay, professor. Have you informed michael cohen and his legal team of your expert opinion ? Better send a memo to the judge and prosecutors, while youre at it.

Cohen and Mueller just need to consult with the former chairman of the FEC, along with thousands of lawyers and judges.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

I'm not sure why, but it seems the Democrats think that paying off a woman to be quiet about a scandal is somehow illegal. Well, it isn't.

Meanwhile, I'm wondering what any of this has to do with collusion with Russia...

It's legal, except for when it isn't, such as when a candidate does it in the run up to an election and does not report it as a campaign expense or as a loan to his campaign. As michael cohen just found out.

Wrong. It's legal even then.

Haha......ooookay, professor. Have you informed michael cohen and his legal team of your expert opinion ? Better send a memo to the judge and prosecutors, while youre at it.

Cohen and Mueller just need to consult with the former chairman of the FEC, along with thousands of lawyers and judges.

Haha.....ooooookay....

*Cuckoo*
.
.
.
.
"Cuckoo*

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Sorry, but that was damn funny! Melania knew what she was marrying when she married him. He has never been a faithful man.

Nothing funny...Trump has used NDAs for years to protect his reputation. Heck, he even sued his first wife for violating an NDA.

Sworn To Secrecy: Trump's History Of Using Nondisclosure Agreements

And it has never worked, but when you cheat on wife 1 with wife 2 it is sort of obvious what sort of person you are

It also shows it was a common thing for him to do in his life, not for a campaign. Your attempt to criminalize the payment fails.

It is not my attempt, it is the attempt of the Southern District of New York. Time will tell what the outcome is.

Well, I don't live in the Southern District of New York, so I don't care if they waste tax dollars. We can look at John Edwards' trial and know what the outcome is going to be.

I would not put too much stock in the Edwards case, there are many differences, the main one being that none of his payments were during the actual election process. When he made his payments not a single primary had been held yet. This is not a small difference.

 

[bripat9643]

It's not the same thing. Only a Stalinist would claim it is. Apartheid doesn't justify stealing private property and murdering the owners. Your moral compass is seriously askew if you believe it does. The Apartheid government was far more benign than the current nest of Stalinist thugs. Blacks immigrated into South Africa the whole time Apartheid was in force. Man, it must have been so horrible!

The land blacks are taking has been in the families of the owners for generation. The only reason it can grow crops at all is because of all the hard work and money the owners invested in it. The blacks who are taking it did nothing to entitle themselves to it. Not a ******* thing. Most of them are not even native to South Africa.

Lol, it IS the same thing, and the killings of farmers has gone DOWN.

You are ignoring the point of me mentioning Apartheid. Again, do you know what happened to those in government that took part in Apartheid???

It's not the same thing. Only a moral leper would equate the two. Apartheid is over, so it's irrelevant. Getting even with ****** is not a legitimate government function, you Stalinist douchebag. Any government that does that is a tyranny, and any who makes excuses for it is a thug.

It's not irrelevant, it proves a point that you continue to ignore. I knew you wouldn't know what happened after Apartheid because you don't pay to attention when people you don't like do fair shit.

They did what is called Truth and Reconciliation Hearings. When Blacks took power in South Africa, they didn't act out in a vindictive manner. No they allowed people that had committed horrible crimes against to come before the commission and admit their acts in return for forgiveness and amnesty.

What does that have to do with black thugs stealing the land of totally innocent farmers and then murdering them?

What "horrible crimes" are you referring to? Committed against who?

What does it have to do with it? It has EVERYTHING to do with it. If Blacks had any time that could even remotely be called acceptable for them to commit violence against whites it would have been after the end of Apartheid, and it didn't happen. What is going on now is NOTHING like how you are trying to make it. After several years of widespread suppression and abuse, the Blacks of South Africa instead turned the other cheek and looked to change their country for the better. Yet here you are trying to spread a lie that there is widespread killings of white farmers by Blacks, and that isn't true.

Blacks have been murdering whites ever since the end of Apartheid. You're trying to say that's acceptable. It isn't. Blacks were denied the right to vote. They weren't murdered in their beds in the middle of the nights like they are currently doing to whites. They also aren't changing their country for the better with this so-called "land reform."

Land Reform In Ramaphosa’s South Africa​

Without exception, splendid enterprises that fed the country many times over have been reduced to “subsistence operations with a few mangy cattle and the odd mealie patch.” (Mealie is Afrikaans for “maize,” deriving, apparently, from the Portuguese word milho.)

In even the best-case scenario, farms belonging to the whites who feed the country and produce surpluses are being handed over to subsistence farmers who can barely feed themselves.​

 

[Lewdog]

Lol, it IS the same thing, and the killings of farmers has gone DOWN.

You are ignoring the point of me mentioning Apartheid. Again, do you know what happened to those in government that took part in Apartheid???

It's not the same thing. Only a moral leper would equate the two. Apartheid is over, so it's irrelevant. Getting even with ****** is not a legitimate government function, you Stalinist douchebag. Any government that does that is a tyranny, and any who makes excuses for it is a thug.

It's not irrelevant, it proves a point that you continue to ignore. I knew you wouldn't know what happened after Apartheid because you don't pay to attention when people you don't like do fair shit.

They did what is called Truth and Reconciliation Hearings. When Blacks took power in South Africa, they didn't act out in a vindictive manner. No they allowed people that had committed horrible crimes against to come before the commission and admit their acts in return for forgiveness and amnesty.

What does that have to do with black thugs stealing the land of totally innocent farmers and then murdering them?

What "horrible crimes" are you referring to? Committed against who?

What does it have to do with it? It has EVERYTHING to do with it. If Blacks had any time that could even remotely be called acceptable for them to commit violence against whites it would have been after the end of Apartheid, and it didn't happen. What is going on now is NOTHING like how you are trying to make it. After several years of widespread suppression and abuse, the Blacks of South Africa instead turned the other cheek and looked to change their country for the better. Yet here you are trying to spread a lie that there is widespread killings of white farmers by Blacks, and that isn't true.

Blacks have been murdering whites ever since the end of Apartheid. You're trying to say that's acceptable. It isn't. Blacks were denied the right to vote. They weren't murdered in their beds in the middle of the nights like they are currently doing to whites. They also aren't changing their country for the better with this so-called "land reform."

Land Reform In Ramaphosa’s South Africa​

Without exception, splendid enterprises that fed the country many times over have been reduced to “subsistence operations with a few mangy cattle and the odd mealie patch.” (Mealie is Afrikaans for “maize,” deriving, apparently, from the Portuguese word milho.)

In even the best-case scenario, farms belonging to the whites who feed the country and produce surpluses are being handed over to subsistence farmers who can barely feed themselves.​

And Whites have been murdering Blacks. It's called crime.

 

[bripat9643]

Nothing funny...Trump has used NDAs for years to protect his reputation. Heck, he even sued his first wife for violating an NDA.

Sworn To Secrecy: Trump's History Of Using Nondisclosure Agreements

And it has never worked, but when you cheat on wife 1 with wife 2 it is sort of obvious what sort of person you are

It also shows it was a common thing for him to do in his life, not for a campaign. Your attempt to criminalize the payment fails.

It is not my attempt, it is the attempt of the Southern District of New York. Time will tell what the outcome is.

Well, I don't live in the Southern District of New York, so I don't care if they waste tax dollars. We can look at John Edwards' trial and know what the outcome is going to be.

I would not put too much stock in the Edwards case, there are many differences, the main one being that none of his payments were during the actual election process. When he made his payments not a single primary had been held yet. This is not a small difference.

It hardly matters. If the news got out, then his political career would be over. That's exactly what happened.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

I'm not sure why, but it seems the Democrats think that paying off a woman to be quiet about a scandal is somehow illegal. Well, it isn't.

Meanwhile, I'm wondering what any of this has to do with collusion with Russia...

It's legal, except for when it isn't, such as when a candidate does it in the run up to an election and does not report it as a campaign expense or as a loan to his campaign. As michael cohen just found out.

Wrong. It's legal even then.

Haha......ooookay, professor. Have you informed michael cohen and his legal team of your expert opinion ? Better send a memo to the judge and prosecutors, while youre at it.

Cohen and Mueller just need to consult with the former chairman of the FEC, along with thousands of lawyers and judges.

Yes, they should check with the Republican former chairman of the FEC...

 

[Harpy Eagle]

And it has never worked, but when you cheat on wife 1 with wife 2 it is sort of obvious what sort of person you are

It also shows it was a common thing for him to do in his life, not for a campaign. Your attempt to criminalize the payment fails.

It is not my attempt, it is the attempt of the Southern District of New York. Time will tell what the outcome is.

Well, I don't live in the Southern District of New York, so I don't care if they waste tax dollars. We can look at John Edwards' trial and know what the outcome is going to be.

I would not put too much stock in the Edwards case, there are many differences, the main one being that none of his payments were during the actual election process. When he made his payments not a single primary had been held yet. This is not a small difference.

It hardly matters. If the news got out, then his political career would be over. That's exactly what happened.

Time will tell what matters. You are one of the people Trump was speaking of when he said he could shoot someone and they would still support him...so your view on the matter is to be taken with a grain of salt

 

[bripat9643]

It's not the same thing. Only a moral leper would equate the two. Apartheid is over, so it's irrelevant. Getting even with ****** is not a legitimate government function, you Stalinist douchebag. Any government that does that is a tyranny, and any who makes excuses for it is a thug.

It's not irrelevant, it proves a point that you continue to ignore. I knew you wouldn't know what happened after Apartheid because you don't pay to attention when people you don't like do fair shit.

They did what is called Truth and Reconciliation Hearings. When Blacks took power in South Africa, they didn't act out in a vindictive manner. No they allowed people that had committed horrible crimes against to come before the commission and admit their acts in return for forgiveness and amnesty.

What does that have to do with black thugs stealing the land of totally innocent farmers and then murdering them?

What "horrible crimes" are you referring to? Committed against who?

What does it have to do with it? It has EVERYTHING to do with it. If Blacks had any time that could even remotely be called acceptable for them to commit violence against whites it would have been after the end of Apartheid, and it didn't happen. What is going on now is NOTHING like how you are trying to make it. After several years of widespread suppression and abuse, the Blacks of South Africa instead turned the other cheek and looked to change their country for the better. Yet here you are trying to spread a lie that there is widespread killings of white farmers by Blacks, and that isn't true.

Blacks have been murdering whites ever since the end of Apartheid. You're trying to say that's acceptable. It isn't. Blacks were denied the right to vote. They weren't murdered in their beds in the middle of the nights like they are currently doing to whites. They also aren't changing their country for the better with this so-called "land reform."

Land Reform In Ramaphosa’s South Africa​

Without exception, splendid enterprises that fed the country many times over have been reduced to “subsistence operations with a few mangy cattle and the odd mealie patch.” (Mealie is Afrikaans for “maize,” deriving, apparently, from the Portuguese word milho.)

In even the best-case scenario, farms belonging to the whites who feed the country and produce surpluses are being handed over to subsistence farmers who can barely feed themselves.​

And Whites have been murdering Blacks. It's called crime.

Bullshit. Apparently you believe the government should allow 'A' to murder 'B' because 'C' murdered 'D.' As I said previously, your moral compass is seriously askew. Furthermore, I've never seen any evidence that the Apartheid government was murdering blacks. In fact, prior to the end of Apartheid, most murders of blacks were committed by other blacks. Specifically, Winnie Mandela and her gang of ANC thugs enjoyed the practice of "neclacing" blacks who weren't supporting their agenda. Have you ever seen photos of that?

 

[bripat9643]

It also shows it was a common thing for him to do in his life, not for a campaign. Your attempt to criminalize the payment fails.

It is not my attempt, it is the attempt of the Southern District of New York. Time will tell what the outcome is.

Well, I don't live in the Southern District of New York, so I don't care if they waste tax dollars. We can look at John Edwards' trial and know what the outcome is going to be.

I would not put too much stock in the Edwards case, there are many differences, the main one being that none of his payments were during the actual election process. When he made his payments not a single primary had been held yet. This is not a small difference.

It hardly matters. If the news got out, then his political career would be over. That's exactly what happened.

Time will tell what matters. You are one of the people Trump was speaking of when he said he could shoot someone and they would still support him...so your view on the matter is to be taken with a grain of salt

Not true. So far, Trump has done nothing that anyone can object to from a legal or moral point of view.

 

[bripat9643]

I'm not sure why, but it seems the Democrats think that paying off a woman to be quiet about a scandal is somehow illegal. Well, it isn't.

Meanwhile, I'm wondering what any of this has to do with collusion with Russia...

It's legal, except for when it isn't, such as when a candidate does it in the run up to an election and does not report it as a campaign expense or as a loan to his campaign. As michael cohen just found out.

Wrong. It's legal even then.

Haha......ooookay, professor. Have you informed michael cohen and his legal team of your expert opinion ? Better send a memo to the judge and prosecutors, while youre at it.

Cohen and Mueller just need to consult with the former chairman of the FEC, along with thousands of lawyers and judges.

Yes, they should check with the Republican former chairman of the FEC...

Why not? You seem to feel we should trust that witch hunting douche Mueller and his scumbag boss.

 

[bripat9643]

It's not the same thing. Only a moral leper would equate the two. Apartheid is over, so it's irrelevant. Getting even with ****** is not a legitimate government function, you Stalinist douchebag. Any government that does that is a tyranny, and any who makes excuses for it is a thug.

It's not irrelevant, it proves a point that you continue to ignore. I knew you wouldn't know what happened after Apartheid because you don't pay to attention when people you don't like do fair shit.

They did what is called Truth and Reconciliation Hearings. When Blacks took power in South Africa, they didn't act out in a vindictive manner. No they allowed people that had committed horrible crimes against to come before the commission and admit their acts in return for forgiveness and amnesty.

What does that have to do with black thugs stealing the land of totally innocent farmers and then murdering them?

What "horrible crimes" are you referring to? Committed against who?

What does it have to do with it? It has EVERYTHING to do with it. If Blacks had any time that could even remotely be called acceptable for them to commit violence against whites it would have been after the end of Apartheid, and it didn't happen. What is going on now is NOTHING like how you are trying to make it. After several years of widespread suppression and abuse, the Blacks of South Africa instead turned the other cheek and looked to change their country for the better. Yet here you are trying to spread a lie that there is widespread killings of white farmers by Blacks, and that isn't true.

Blacks have been murdering whites ever since the end of Apartheid. You're trying to say that's acceptable. It isn't. Blacks were denied the right to vote. They weren't murdered in their beds in the middle of the nights like they are currently doing to whites. They also aren't changing their country for the better with this so-called "land reform."

Land Reform In Ramaphosa’s South Africa​

Without exception, splendid enterprises that fed the country many times over have been reduced to “subsistence operations with a few mangy cattle and the odd mealie patch.” (Mealie is Afrikaans for “maize,” deriving, apparently, from the Portuguese word milho.)

In even the best-case scenario, farms belonging to the whites who feed the country and produce surpluses are being handed over to subsistence farmers who can barely feed themselves.​

And Whites have been murdering Blacks. It's called crime.

Really? Can you prove that?

 

[Lewdog]

It's not irrelevant, it proves a point that you continue to ignore. I knew you wouldn't know what happened after Apartheid because you don't pay to attention when people you don't like do fair shit.

They did what is called Truth and Reconciliation Hearings. When Blacks took power in South Africa, they didn't act out in a vindictive manner. No they allowed people that had committed horrible crimes against to come before the commission and admit their acts in return for forgiveness and amnesty.

What does that have to do with black thugs stealing the land of totally innocent farmers and then murdering them?

What "horrible crimes" are you referring to? Committed against who?

What does it have to do with it? It has EVERYTHING to do with it. If Blacks had any time that could even remotely be called acceptable for them to commit violence against whites it would have been after the end of Apartheid, and it didn't happen. What is going on now is NOTHING like how you are trying to make it. After several years of widespread suppression and abuse, the Blacks of South Africa instead turned the other cheek and looked to change their country for the better. Yet here you are trying to spread a lie that there is widespread killings of white farmers by Blacks, and that isn't true.

Blacks have been murdering whites ever since the end of Apartheid. You're trying to say that's acceptable. It isn't. Blacks were denied the right to vote. They weren't murdered in their beds in the middle of the nights like they are currently doing to whites. They also aren't changing their country for the better with this so-called "land reform."

Land Reform In Ramaphosa’s South Africa​

Without exception, splendid enterprises that fed the country many times over have been reduced to “subsistence operations with a few mangy cattle and the odd mealie patch.” (Mealie is Afrikaans for “maize,” deriving, apparently, from the Portuguese word milho.)

In even the best-case scenario, farms belonging to the whites who feed the country and produce surpluses are being handed over to subsistence farmers who can barely feed themselves.​

And Whites have been murdering Blacks. It's called crime.

Bullshit. Apparently you believe the government should allow 'A' to murder 'B' because 'C' murdered 'D.' As I said previously, your moral compass is seriously askew. Furthermore, I've never seen any evidence that the Apartheid government was murdering blacks. In fact, prior to the end of Apartheid, most murders of blacks were committed by other blacks. Specifically, Winnie Mandela and her gang of ANC thugs enjoyed the practice of "neclacing" blacks who weren't supporting their agenda. Have you ever seen photos of that?

No, not what I said. I said that if Blacks didn't murder whites in retaliation to Apartheid after they took power... they certainly aren't out suddenly murdering farmers and an alarming rate now like you make them out to be doing... and like the FACTS state, the murder rates of white farmers is DOWN.

Those are FACTS.

 

[bripat9643]

What does that have to do with black thugs stealing the land of totally innocent farmers and then murdering them?

What "horrible crimes" are you referring to? Committed against who?

What does it have to do with it? It has EVERYTHING to do with it. If Blacks had any time that could even remotely be called acceptable for them to commit violence against whites it would have been after the end of Apartheid, and it didn't happen. What is going on now is NOTHING like how you are trying to make it. After several years of widespread suppression and abuse, the Blacks of South Africa instead turned the other cheek and looked to change their country for the better. Yet here you are trying to spread a lie that there is widespread killings of white farmers by Blacks, and that isn't true.

Blacks have been murdering whites ever since the end of Apartheid. You're trying to say that's acceptable. It isn't. Blacks were denied the right to vote. They weren't murdered in their beds in the middle of the nights like they are currently doing to whites. They also aren't changing their country for the better with this so-called "land reform."

Land Reform In Ramaphosa’s South Africa​

Without exception, splendid enterprises that fed the country many times over have been reduced to “subsistence operations with a few mangy cattle and the odd mealie patch.” (Mealie is Afrikaans for “maize,” deriving, apparently, from the Portuguese word milho.)

In even the best-case scenario, farms belonging to the whites who feed the country and produce surpluses are being handed over to subsistence farmers who can barely feed themselves.​

And Whites have been murdering Blacks. It's called crime.

Bullshit. Apparently you believe the government should allow 'A' to murder 'B' because 'C' murdered 'D.' As I said previously, your moral compass is seriously askew. Furthermore, I've never seen any evidence that the Apartheid government was murdering blacks. In fact, prior to the end of Apartheid, most murders of blacks were committed by other blacks. Specifically, Winnie Mandela and her gang of ANC thugs enjoyed the practice of "neclacing" blacks who weren't supporting their agenda. Have you ever seen photos of that?

No, not what I said. I said that if Blacks didn't murder whites in retaliation to Apartheid after they took power... they certainly aren't out suddenly murdering farmers and an alarming rate now like you make them out to be doing... and like the FACTS state, the murder rates of white farmers is DOWN.

Those are FACTS.

I don't buy the claim that murder rates are down. The government simply doesn't list the violent deaths of farmers at black hands as a murder. Anywho who swallows statistics published by a gang of murdering commie thugs is terminally gullible.

 

[Flopper]

In other words, you're proud to be a hypocrite.

Oh? Which of those Democrats cheated on their spouse? When you can't name one, let this serve as a reminder for why you're a ******* moron.

I didn't say the people on the list cheated on their spouses, but there's a long list of Dims who have.

So what, ******* moron?

I was talking about Trump being a piece of shit scumbag who cheated on his wife who had recently birthed his child. A brain-dead con asked, but what about Pelosi, Schumer and Waters.

I noted how their only defense of trump was another, butwhataboutism, to which you idiotically thought that made me a hypocrite.

Well, ******* moron, for me to be a hypocrite here, at least one of those Democrats would need to be a piece of shit scumbag cheater like trump.

Savvy?

When it comes to outrageous immoral behavior, Trump is in a league of his own. Over the last 30 years Trump used the media shamelessly to create a public image and keep that image in the headlines, often making fools of reporters and editors. Now, he is president and the media which was his most important tool in promoting himself has become his deadliest enemy. For the media, it's payback time. The free ride is over and it's time to pay the piper.

So what is the "immoral behavior" you're accusing Trump of?

For starters, there's sex and lies as with most politicians.
However what separates Trump from his predecessors is volume and lack any remorse. Trump lies to illustrate a point, please his audience or himself. I doubt he see anything wrong with his lies. His infidelities and other sexual behavior seem to be source of pride, whether it's groping women, infidelities, or other activities he spoke of on late night shows, he seems to take great pride in his transgressions.

How many times has Trump cheated on his wives? Here's what we know

 

[bripat9643]

Oh? Which of those Democrats cheated on their spouse? When you can't name one, let this serve as a reminder for why you're a ******* moron.

I didn't say the people on the list cheated on their spouses, but there's a long list of Dims who have.

So what, ******* moron?

I was talking about Trump being a piece of shit scumbag who cheated on his wife who had recently birthed his child. A brain-dead con asked, but what about Pelosi, Schumer and Waters.

I noted how their only defense of trump was another, butwhataboutism, to which you idiotically thought that made me a hypocrite.

Well, ******* moron, for me to be a hypocrite here, at least one of those Democrats would need to be a piece of shit scumbag cheater like trump.

Savvy?

When it comes to outrageous immoral behavior, Trump is in a league of his own. Over the last 30 years Trump used the media shamelessly to create a public image and keep that image in the headlines, often making fools of reporters and editors. Now, he is president and the media which was his most important tool in promoting himself has become his deadliest enemy. For the media, it's payback time. The free ride is over and it's time to pay the piper.

So what is the "immoral behavior" you're accusing Trump of?

For starters, there's sex and lies as with most politicians.
However what separates Trump from his predecessors is volume and lack any remorse. Trump lies to illustrate a point, please his audience or himself. I doubt he see anything wrong with his lies. His infidelities and other sexual behavior seem to be source of pride, whether it's groping women, infidelities, or other activities he spoke of on late night shows, he seems to take great pride in his transgressions.

How many times has Trump cheated on his wives? Here's what we know

Your belief that Obama and Hillary didn't lie couldn't be more hilarious. If Obama had the kind of opportunities that have presented themselves to Trump, there is little doubt that he would have strayed. His fidelity is the result of the fact that he is not attractive to most women. Being a "community organizer" isn't exactly a glamorous job.

 

[Flopper]

You understand this is stuff that can be proven right?

Video: Trump faces more fallout from retweets of far-right group

Just like he retweeted about South Africa, and it is totally untrue.

"They are good people on both sides... both sides."

It goes on and on. It's pretty simple. Don't want to hear about racism and Nazism, don't elect and support a guy that says and does things to support Alt-Right groups.

Confirmation bias.

-------------------------------------------------

Trump: “South African Government is now seizing land from white farmers.”

Lewdog: Just like he retweeted about South Africa, and it is totally untrue.

It is true, WTF is wrong with you? Some of that land has been in farmer's families for centuries. It's just your typical leftist bull shit that racism is only white on black, blacks can't by your leftist definition be racists



--------------------------------------------------

What Trump said: “You also had some very fine people on both sides."

This is how you lie, "They are good people on both sides... both sides."

You changed that he said some to all and you said he repeated it, which he didn't.

So just to be clear, you think there are not SOME good people who are both for and against removing southern statues of former slave owners? One side has in your view literally zero good people?

-----------------------------------------------------

So other than your just flat outright lie/misquote of Trump and a factually true statement that you lied wasn't factually true, you have anything or you going to hang your hat on that, racist? Again, race baiting is in itself racist

It's a true as making a political statement that Blacks are being systematically exterminated in America. Yes, there are white people who are killing Blacks in the U.S. but it isn't anywhere near the levels it used to be.

The killing of white farmers in South Africa is actually DOWN from in the past, and South Africa isn't taking away land at some crazy rate in South Africa. It is no different than here in the U.S. where Trump wants to build his wall, which will include the federal government taking the land of U.S. citizens under imminent domain so they can build the wall.

That's are why these are called half-truths.

Trump Echoes Neo-Nazi Propaganda About South Africa (That He Heard on Fox News)

So please explain to me how I paraphrased what Trump said was different from the EXACT quote.

I said they are, when it is "there are." Yes, that is the quote and even with that quote, he is trying to talk out of both sides of his mouth so that he can try to say he spoke out against the violence, YET not offend the white nationalist base, one of which ran over protesters and killed a woman.

The tweet YOU referred to again. “South African Government is now seizing land from white farmers.”

The link I gave you said the South African government is taking land from white farmers. It also mentioned blacks killing white farmers, so you went off on that deflecting from the point we were discussing.

This is how you lie and race bait, racist. Trump didn't say anything about the murder of white farmers, he said the South African government is confiscating the land of white farmers, which is true.

And these were your go to, first off the bat examples that Trump is the racist. One you just flat out lied and misquoted him. The other, you didn't address what he said but make up something he didn't say and went off after that.

All you're doing is proving your point that you're a racist because you are race baiting and exploiting races for cheap political points

I believe there is much misinformation on this issue. The South African Government has always had the right to confiscate land where needed with compensation just as Trump is planning on doing to build his wall in the US. What has changed is an amendment is being considered which would eliminate compensation. No farms are being confiscated without compensation now and there are no mass killings of whites over this issue. That is false news.

However, if the amendment passes farms owned by whites could be taken without compensation. According to the ANC, that would not happen due to wording in the amendment. However, others in the ANC say they want both black and white owned farms. Since the farm exports have risen rapidly bringing much needed revenue into the country, it seems unlikely the government would want to upset the apple cart.

Everyone grasps eminent domain, moron. The point in South Africa is they are targeting white farmers because of their race. How stupid are you?

Maybe if you read the amendment, you might actually understand rather just repeating propaganda.

 

[jon_berzerk]

[

even better the guy plead guilty to a charge that was not a crime

--LOL

Yep. And because this is a plea deal, essentially a contract, it's binding regardless of what he plead to.

The charges will never be adjudicated. Torquemada set it up this way.

indeed