OT: Epstein: 'Conspiracy theorists' proved right again

[Whoey Louie]

On Thursday, August 15, 2019 at 8:23:08 AM UTC-4, DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:

Whoey Louie <trader4@optonline.net> wrote in news:6454cffc-48d4-4efa-
942a-68f95466be03@googlegroups.com:

Simple fact
is, you're a lefty loon with big penis envy.

And you are a perfect example of a jackass whom would be dead the
very next morning as the result of a duel, which, motherfucker, you
would lose. And then your (tiny) dick and your nuts would be your last
meal.

Although rolling your lard ass over might prove difficult. Snipping
that nasty shit off of you to feed it to you would also be a very hard
task to perform, so you would likely get a vomit sauce garnish.

You having an especially difficult day today? Wrong more than usual
or something?

 

[Whoey Louie]

On Thursday, August 15, 2019 at 8:17:18 AM UTC-4, DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:

Whoey Louie <trader4@optonline.net> wrote in
news:6454cffc-48d4-4efa-942a-68f95466be03@googlegroups.com:

It's no surprise you won't admit that the libs have been
screeching about Trump colluding with the Russians since 2016.
It's what libs do, they lie.


Umm... No. Not 'libs'. MANY Americans have noted the behavior and
that it was beyond 'conduct unbecoming'. It registered as criminal
in a very high percentage of intelligent Americans.

Well, obviously they were wrong. But thanks for admitting that what
I said is true. That puts you a step above Bill.

The simple fact is that you do not number among them (the class).

And it has absolutely been since 2016 when the stupid fuck actually
pulled the stupid, criminal shit. You dig yet, dumbfuck?

And there you go again. Mueller concluded there was no collusion,
no conspiracy, no criminal activity with Russia by Trump, his campaign
or any American that he investigated.

 

[Whoey Louie]

On Thursday, August 15, 2019 at 8:09:01 AM UTC-4, DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:

Whoey Louie <trader4@optonline.net> wrote in news:030a8273-7db1-44c7-
b03e-9a2e03dd94d8@googlegroups.com:

No one gets exactly one vote per person, it all goes through the
Electoral College, as it always has.

We KNOW how it is currently, you dumb fucktard.

We ALSO KNOW that the electoral college is susceptible to and is
corrupted... CURRENTLY AND IN THE PAST AS WELL. YOU DIG, FUCKTARD!?

I dig that you keep saying that, but as always, when asked to back it
up, you have nothing..... You're just another sore loser, mad that
Trump won and you won't accept it.

 

[Whoey Louie]

On Thursday, August 15, 2019 at 7:57:40 AM UTC-4, DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:

Whoey Louie <trader4@optonline.net> wrote in
news:f7272aee-5aac-456e-a8fb-b0ab96ac89b6@googlegroups.com:

On Wednesday, August 14, 2019 at 11:02:40 AM UTC-4,
DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:
Whoey Louie <trader4@optonline.net> wrote in
news:c48847d7-e4d1-4a59-849a-6973074d2de4@googlegroups.com:

ROFL. Stupid lib. You libs have been howling about Trump
colluding with Russia since 2016.



You are an idiot. He did collude.

Thanks for proving my point.

Wrong, always wrong.



Your sig still fits you.

Not a 'lib', you retarded putz. I am a republican.

Wrong, always wrong. I didn't call you a lib, that was in response
to a post by your butt buddy, Bill. You are easily confused.


I simply just

happens that I possess a working brain. Unlike Trump supporters and
'libspew' idiots like you.

You just demonstrated that you can't even follow a simple reply,
so you shouldn't be calling anyone else an idiot.

 

[Whoey Louie]

On Thursday, August 15, 2019 at 12:11:27 AM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:

It's no surprise you won't admit that the libs have been screeching about Trump colluding with the Russians since 2016. It's what libs do, they lie.

This is krw logic. He is disagreeing with me - I can't imagine that I'm wrong so he must believe that I'm right, so he has to be lying.

No, you're lying as every honest person knows the libs have been howling
about Trump colluding with Russia since 2016. And if KRW said you're
a lying lib, he's right.

I could invite you to spot the logical fallacy in that train of logic, but that would be way above your pay grade.

snip

I could invite you to learn how to trim posts, but it would be futile.

He did rule out collusion. The hush money paid to Stormy Daniels was "election meddling" and should have been reported as an election expense.

Oh, BS, that's pure nonsense. You know what the best defense to that BS is? I'd say to the jury, OK, the prosecution says the Trump campaign was supposed to treat this as a campaign expenditure, not personal. Suppose the Trump campaign paid it, reported it as a campaign expense. Then we'd be here in court with the Trump campaign charged with using campaign donations for PERSONAL expenses. And then, they probably would have a case..

They wouldn't have been under any obligation to report it as a campaign expense. It was a personal expenditure that wouldn't have been paid if it couldn't have influenced the campaign,

BS. Trump had plenty of other motives to try to buy silence. Like it
being a disaster to his marriage, Melania, his family and the Trump brand.

He's had several marriages, and none the previous marriages ended well, which doesn't seem to have damaged the Trump brand with anybody silly enough to take it at face value.

Irrelevant of course to the fact that any fair person would recognize that
money that Trump paid PERSONALLY would serve more purposes than just helping
his election. But then you're not fair.

Trader4 thinks that he's a "fair" person, and that anybody who doesn't share his particular delusions is being "unfair". Pity about that.

It wouldn't have helped his election campaign if the current marriage had fallen apart during the campaign.

And it would have hurt Melania, Baron, his other kids, the Trump brand, etc.
Good grief, you're either incredibly stupid or just totally biased.
Actually, it's both.

Trump has had several failed marriages, which clearly hurt the family members involved.

Irrelevant, stupid. If you burn yourself once on a hot stove, does that
mean that you then want to repeat it?


His antics them didn't show any desire not to hurt those family members. The proposition that he has finally found true love with Melina isn't exactly plausible. Donald Trump loves Donald Trump and there's no room for anybody else in that relationship.

So, smart guy, where is the federal form to figure out how to apportion
the $100K between those categories and the campaign.

Who needs a form?

That one went right over your head too. The point is, if such an expenditure
is to be treated correctly, then where is the federal form, the rules,
the procedure to establish what percent of the payment was for personal
benefit and what percent is to be treated as a campaign expenditure?
That there is no form, no rules, speaks for itself.

Your idea that such an expense might be "treated correctly" implies the existence of such proceduree,

No it doesn't, stupid. I specifically asked where are the rules, the guidelines, the procedure the forms, whereby a candidate decides how
much of a payment to a woman to shut her up is a personal expense and
how much is a campaign expense. It was rhetorical, because it doesn't
exist.


which you then tell us don't exist. You demonstrate your stupidity more or less non-stop.

He's never before gone to any trouble to avoid looking like a sleaze-bag, so the whole expenditure in on the election campaign.

And you ignored the central tennent here, which is they claim it had to be
treated as a campaign donation.

No. As an election expenditure.

Both actually. If it was just a campaign expenditure, then Trump would have
no direct responsibility, he was not filing the forms.

He told Michael Cohen to pay her off, but denied that he had done it.

So, Trump is a liar, big surprise there.


You can try to evade responsibility that way, but once Michael Cohen got nailed, it stopped working.

They were after Trump
on the angle that it if you consider paying off a woman to shut her up, then
it's a CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTION and TRUMP, would have been
personally responsible to report it as a CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTION. That's right,
the big stink is that Trump, who could give as much as he pleased to his own
campaign, was supposed to have committed a crime by not putting it on a form.

That's exactly right.

Except of course that it was a personal expense. And if he had the campaign
pay for it instead, why then you libs would be screaming that he committed
a crime, he used CAMPAIGN MONEY FOR A PERSONAL EXPENSE.

And what you fail to address is that if instead, the Trump campaign had paid
Stormy $100K using CAMPAIGN FUNDS, why then Trump and the campaign would be
charged with using campaign funds for a PERSONAL expense!

I doubt if they would have been worried about the personal expense angle.

Oh BS! That WOULD BE A CRIME! You don't think anyone cares if a candidate
uses campaign money for personal expenses? Two Congressmen were indicted
last year for exactly that!

And that's exactly what you libs would be claiming and with that court case, you likely could get a conviction. They'd be screaming, Trump paid off a porn star with campaign money!

The problem isn't where the money came from, but that it was paid out to influence the election without being reported as an election expense.

Again, get this through your thick lib skull. If it was of benefit to the
campaign, then it was also of benefit to Trump personally and to his
business. So, again, how does one allocate the $100K into those categories?

The federal govt tried to bring these charges once before, against John
Edwards. Living in kangaroo land, you obviously have no idea about it.
Edwards didn't use his own money, he actually solicited money from other
people, had them donate money to shut up his mistress during the campaign.
That case was ten times better than any case against Trump, it wasn't
Edwards who could make unlimited contributions, it was other people's
money! The jury acquitted Edwards on one charge, the deadlocked on the
rest and the fed dropped it. End of story. That's where your lib BS
case would wind up and even the feds knew it.

So, I'm still waiting for someone to explain how you can pay a woman legally.

Do it before the election campaign is under way.

Stormy and that prick Avenatti were not extorting Trump before the
campaign, idiot.

 

[Whoey Louie]

On Thursday, August 15, 2019 at 8:39:45 PM UTC-4, DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:

Whoey Louie <trader4@optonline.net> wrote in news:c64bd557-2d08-49e8-
854e-0eaa43556f33@googlegroups.com:

Well, obviously they were wrong.

No, they were not. Obviously you make shit up.

He committed the crime and the crime of him asking them to do so in
public is enough. Crime is crime. Trump is a foreign enemy of the
state colluder. He should face a firing squad.

Maybe that's the source of much of your anger? You hate Trump so much, yet you just told us that you are a Republican? Wow, that's something that would have you hating yourself and angry. Trump IS the Republican Party, he hijacked it and anyone who is still a Republican is just enabling him. Maybe your lib buddy Bill can explain it to you.

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Friday, August 16, 2019 at 9:46:56 AM UTC+10, Whoey Louie wrote:

On Thursday, August 15, 2019 at 12:11:27 AM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:

It's no surprise you won't admit that the libs have been screeching about Trump colluding with the Russians since 2016. It's what libs do, they lie.

This is krw logic. He is disagreeing with me - I can't imagine that I'm wrong so he must believe that I'm right, so he has to be lying.

No, you're lying as every honest person knows the libs have been howling
about Trump colluding with Russia since 2016.

But Trader4 can't find a single example.

> And if KRW said you're a lying lib, he's right.

In his mind, of course he is. You appear to suffer from the same kind of cognitive deficit.

I could invite you to spot the logical fallacy in that train of logic, but that would be way above your pay grade.

snip

I could invite you to learn how to trim posts, but it would be futile.

I do trim posts all the time. I do try to avoid text-chopping.

Would you like to explain the distinction?

<snip>

> > > > > > > > He did rule out collusion. The hush money paid to Stormy Daniels was "election meddling" and should have been reported as an election expense.

<snip>

BS. Trump had plenty of other motives to try to buy silence. Like it
being a disaster to his marriage, Melania, his family and the Trump brand.

He's had several marriages, and none the previous marriages ended well, which doesn't seem to have damaged the Trump brand with anybody silly enough to take it at face value.

Irrelevant of course to the fact that any fair person would recognize that
money that Trump paid PERSONALLY would serve more purposes than just helping his election. But then you're not fair.

Trader4 thinks that he's a "fair" person, and that anybody who doesn't share his particular delusions is being "unfair". Pity about that.

It wouldn't have helped his election campaign if the current marriage had fallen apart during the campaign.

And it would have hurt Melania, Baron, his other kids, the Trump brand, etc. Good grief, you're either incredibly stupid or just totally biased.
Actually, it's both.

Trump has had several failed marriages, which clearly hurt the family members involved.

Irrelevant, stupid. If you burn yourself once on a hot stove, does that
mean that you then want to repeat it?

Trump has "burnt himself" several times on that hot stove, and it hasn't seemed to have discouraged him from behaving badly every time.

His antics them didn't show any desire not to hurt those family members. The proposition that he has finally found true love with Melina isn't exactly plausible. Donald Trump loves Donald Trump and there's no room for anybody else in that relationship.

So, smart guy, where is the federal form to figure out how to apportion the $100K between those categories and the campaign.

Who needs a form?

That one went right over your head too. The point is, if such an expenditure is to be treated correctly, then where is the federal form, the rules,the procedure to establish what percent of the payment was for personal benefit and what percent is to be treated as a campaign expenditure? That there is no form, no rules, speaks for itself.

Your idea that such an expense might be "treated correctly" implies the existence of such proceduree,

No it doesn't, stupid. I specifically asked where are the rules, the guidelines, the procedure the forms, whereby a candidate decides how
much of a payment to a woman to shut her up is a personal expense and how much is a campaign expense. It was rhetorical, because it doesn't exist.

The stupidity is all yours. You want to invoke a generally applicable rule - you talk about "treated correctly" - then complain that there isn't a specific rule for that particular case, when custom and precedent provide all the guidance necessary.

which you then tell us don't exist. You demonstrate your stupidity more or less non-stop.

He's never before gone to any trouble to avoid looking like a sleaze-bag, so the whole expenditure in on the election campaign.

And you ignored the central tennent here, which is they claim it had to be treated as a campaign donation.

No. As an election expenditure.

Both actually. If it was just a campaign expenditure, then Trump would have no direct responsibility, he was not filing the forms.

He told Michael Cohen to pay her off, but denied that he had done it.

So, Trump is a liar, big surprise there.

And responsible for the payoff, though he tried to hide this.

You can try to evade responsibility that way, but once Michael Cohen got nailed, it stopped working.

They were after Trump on the angle that it if you consider paying off a woman to shut her up, then it's a CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTION and TRUMP, would have been personally responsible to report it as a CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTION. That's right, the big stink is that Trump, who could give as much as he pleased to his own campaign, was supposed to have committed a crime by not putting it on a form.

That's exactly right.

Except of course that it was a personal expense. And if he had the campaign
pay for it instead, why then you libs would be screaming that he committed
a crime, he used CAMPAIGN MONEY FOR A PERSONAL EXPENSE.

It was an election expenditure - where the money came from isn't necessarily material.

And what you fail to address is that if instead, the Trump campaign had paid Stormy $100K using CAMPAIGN FUNDS, why then Trump and the campaign would be
charged with using campaign funds for a PERSONAL expense!

I doubt if they would have been worried about the personal expense angle.

Oh BS! That WOULD BE A CRIME! You don't think anyone cares if a candidate
uses campaign money for personal expenses? Two Congressmen were indicted
last year for exactly that!

That's different problem. They weren't trying to influence the outcome of an election.

And that's exactly what you libs would be claiming and with that court case, you likely could get a conviction. They'd be screaming, Trump paid off a porn star with campaign money!

The problem isn't where the money came from, but that it was paid out to influence the election without being reported as an election expense.

Again, get this through your thick lib skull. If it was of benefit to the
campaign, then it was also of benefit to Trump personally and to his
business. So, again, how does one allocate the $100K into those categories?

You don't have to bother. The question is whether it was intended to influence the outcome of the election. That Trump might have had additional motivations doesn't come into it.

<snipped possible precedent - Trader4 gets this kind of stuff wrong all the time. "Moylan said he doesn’t think the failure of the Edwards prosecution means the episode involving Cohen and Clifford couldn’t be prosecuted, but said he thinks the outcome of that trial would be a factor..">

So, I'm still waiting for someone to explain how you can pay a woman legally.

Do it before the election campaign is under way.

Stormy and that prick Avenatti were not extorting Trump before the
campaign, idiot.

So they too figured that Trump would never have paid up if he hadn't been an election candidate, which emphasises that the payment was made to influence the outcome of the election.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Friday, August 16, 2019 at 12:10:32 PM UTC+10, Whoey Louie wrote:

On Thursday, August 15, 2019 at 8:39:45 PM UTC-4, DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:
Whoey Louie <trader4@optonline.net> wrote in news:c64bd557-2d08-49e8-
854e-0eaa43556f33@googlegroups.com:

Well, obviously they were wrong.

No, they were not. Obviously you make shit up.

He committed the crime and the crime of him asking them to do so in
public is enough. Crime is crime. Trump is a foreign enemy of the
state colluder. He should face a firing squad.

Maybe that's the source of much of your anger? You hate Trump so much, yet you just told us that you are a Republican? Wow, that's something that would have you hating yourself and angry. Trump IS the Republican Party, he hijacked it and anyone who is still a Republican is just enabling him.

Actually the Koch brothers hijacked the Republican Party first - remember the Tea Party, which was a Koch-funded astro-turfing operation - and got rid of anybody who wasn't a repulsive right-wing lunatic.

Trump became the Republican Party's nominee because - despite being a repulsive jerk - because all the other candidates were even more repulsive, and inept with it.

The tattered remnants of the Republican Party cling to Trump because he is all they have got. He only appeals to people who are as stupid as you are - but half the population has below average intelligence - and the Republican Party gerry-mandering may have been thorough enough to let them salvage enough votes to survive.

They have zero appeal to anybody who isn't a brain-damaged right-wing lunatic, but we have enough of them posting here to suggest that their situation isn't as desperate as it ought to be.

> Maybe Bill can explain it to you.

I can explain it to you too, but it's unlikely that you can follow the explanation.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

Whoey Louie <trader4@optonline.net> wrote in
news:b6561e8e-86db-4fa1-a90e-aabe23f119fb@googlegroups.com:

> Maybe that's the source of much of your anger?

You're an abject idiot. I am not angry and you have zero assesment
skills.

You hate Trump so
much,

My dislike for (not hate) Donald J. Trump is about his criminal
lifelong NYC Landlord scum lowlife character.

> yet you just told us that you are a Republican?

No. I mentioned it years ago, you retarded twerp. I am a
republican. A true republican. Unlike immature dopey little
lardassed retarded punks like you blaming folks and calling folks
'libs' as if that has some meaning other than to show your lack of
depth.

Wow, that's
something that would have you hating yourself and angry.

Again, your capacity to make a valid assessment of adult human
behavior rests frimly at nil, child.

Trump IS
the Republican Party,

No, dumbfuck. Trump got backed by the republican party because
they knew he was going to win with them in control of the electoral
college, so they all got behind him. He selected Republican to run
under. He was formerly a democrat, and prior to that, he was just a
zero party total retard. He has retained the total retard aspect,
but he has sullied the party, and they know it. A number of them are
currently shooting themselves in the head to remain behind the stupid
bastard, much less the foot. It will bite them all in the ass. It
will take many years for Americans to trust republican characterless
assholes like Ryan (whom did once have character)or McConnell (whom
made deals with russians under sanction, a crime). No, he is not the
party. At best, he is now a puppet of the party and any crazy way he
puts things can be blamed on him now, so he is a republican joy in a
small way, but a nightmare in most. It will bite all of them in the
ass real soon. He will be impeached and it will succeed. Criminal
charges will follow. I hope Scotland charges him with crimes too.
The party will suffer because they stood behind an absolute fucking
characterless lunatic. If he had any character, maybe they could
have gotten away with some of their stupid shit. But the mouthy
dumbfuck makes it blatantly apparent that the party is for industry,
not the general citizenry.

he hijacked it and anyone who is still a
Republican is just enabling him.

You are an idiot. Many republicans are speaking out against him.
Wake the fuck up, you retarded dumbfuck.

Maybe your lib buddy Bill can
explain it to you.

Maybe you can keep your retared, miles off the mark, unsolicited,
uneducated, unprofessional assessments of others to yourself.

Or post your name and address, and I will stop by some time and we
can discuss it for a few seconds. I promise the meeting will be a
one time thing and that afterwards you will never have another worry.
Until you next awake naked before christ as he sends you to burn in
hell for eternity.

 

[Rheilly Phoull]

On 16/08/2019 12:42 pm, DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno@decadence.org wrote:

Whoey Louie <trader4@optonline.net> wrote in
news:b6561e8e-86db-4fa1-a90e-aabe23f119fb@googlegroups.com:

Maybe that's the source of much of your anger?

You're an abject idiot. I am not angry and you have zero assesment
skills.

You hate Trump so
much,

My dislike for (not hate) Donald J. Trump is about his criminal
lifelong NYC Landlord scum lowlife character.

yet you just told us that you are a Republican?

No. I mentioned it years ago, you retarded twerp. I am a
republican. A true republican. Unlike immature dopey little
lardassed retarded punks like you blaming folks and calling folks
'libs' as if that has some meaning other than to show your lack of
depth.

Wow, that's
something that would have you hating yourself and angry.

Again, your capacity to make a valid assessment of adult human
behavior rests frimly at nil, child.

Trump IS
the Republican Party,

No, dumbfuck. Trump got backed by the republican party because
they knew he was going to win with them in control of the electoral
college, so they all got behind him. He selected Republican to run
under. He was formerly a democrat, and prior to that, he was just a
zero party total retard. He has retained the total retard aspect,
but he has sullied the party, and they know it. A number of them are
currently shooting themselves in the head to remain behind the stupid
bastard, much less the foot. It will bite them all in the ass. It
will take many years for Americans to trust republican characterless
assholes like Ryan (whom did once have character)or McConnell (whom
made deals with russians under sanction, a crime). No, he is not the
party. At best, he is now a puppet of the party and any crazy way he
puts things can be blamed on him now, so he is a republican joy in a
small way, but a nightmare in most. It will bite all of them in the
ass real soon. He will be impeached and it will succeed. Criminal
charges will follow. I hope Scotland charges him with crimes too.
The party will suffer because they stood behind an absolute fucking
characterless lunatic. If he had any character, maybe they could
have gotten away with some of their stupid shit. But the mouthy
dumbfuck makes it blatantly apparent that the party is for industry,
not the general citizenry.

he hijacked it and anyone who is still a
Republican is just enabling him.

You are an idiot. Many republicans are speaking out against him.
Wake the fuck up, you retarded dumbfuck.

Maybe your lib buddy Bill can
explain it to you.

Maybe you can keep your retared, miles off the mark, unsolicited,
uneducated, unprofessional assessments of others to yourself.

Or post your name and address, and I will stop by some time and we
can discuss it for a few seconds. I promise the meeting will be a
one time thing and that afterwards you will never have another worry.
Until you next awake naked before christ as he sends you to burn in
hell for eternity.

Oh dear the group "crayfish" ( head full of shit ) has become the
keyboard warrior. hah hah hah

 

[Whoey Louie]

On Thursday, August 15, 2019 at 11:14:21 PM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:

On Friday, August 16, 2019 at 12:10:32 PM UTC+10, Whoey Louie wrote:
On Thursday, August 15, 2019 at 8:39:45 PM UTC-4, DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:
Whoey Louie <trader4@optonline.net> wrote in news:c64bd557-2d08-49e8-
854e-0eaa43556f33@googlegroups.com:

Well, obviously they were wrong.

No, they were not. Obviously you make shit up.

He committed the crime and the crime of him asking them to do so in
public is enough. Crime is crime. Trump is a foreign enemy of the
state colluder. He should face a firing squad.

Maybe that's the source of much of your anger? You hate Trump so much, yet you just told us that you are a Republican? Wow, that's something that would have you hating yourself and angry. Trump IS the Republican Party, he hijacked it and anyone who is still a Republican is just enabling him.

Actually the Koch brothers hijacked the Republican Party first - remember the Tea Party, which was a Koch-funded astro-turfing operation - and got rid of anybody who wasn't a repulsive right-wing lunatic.

Actually the Republican Party became more conservative and fed up with
candidates who claim to be Republicans, but when elected act like
Democrats. The Democratic Party has gone far, extreme lib left, but
I don't see you bitching about that or blaming George Soros.

Trump became the Republican Party's nominee because - despite being a repulsive jerk - because all the other candidates were even more repulsive, and inept with it.

No, you have that all wrong. Trump became the nominee because the GOP
read the voters correctly and saw that they wanted someone knew, someone
who wasn't a politician and they were willing to overlook all of Trump's
defects. The Democrats failed to recognize that and picked a throwback
to the past, carrying a whole lot of baggage. And that's why Trump won
the GENERAL election, because the other candidate was even more repulsive
and inept. Thanks for bringing that up.

The tattered remnants of the Republican Party cling to Trump because he is all they have got. He only appeals to people who are as stupid as you are

That can't be the case, I didn't vote for him.



- but half the population has below average intelligence - and the Republican Party gerry-mandering may have been thorough enough to let them salvage enough votes to survive.

They have zero appeal to anybody who isn't a brain-damaged right-wing lunatic,

By that standard, 42% of the US is brain-damaged. Sounds like what
Hillary told America, when she called those people the 'deplorables".
How did that work out for you? And even worse, the stupid libs here
are in the process of repeating the same mistake, even worse this time.
They have two dozen extreme lefty radicals running, that support open
borders, sanctuary cities and states, handing out freebies to everyone
with money we don't have, and even giving free healthcare to illegal aliens!

 

[Whoey Louie]

On Thursday, August 15, 2019 at 11:01:16 PM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:

On Friday, August 16, 2019 at 9:46:56 AM UTC+10, Whoey Louie wrote:
On Thursday, August 15, 2019 at 12:11:27 AM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:

It's no surprise you won't admit that the libs have been screeching about Trump colluding with the Russians since 2016. It's what libs do, they lie.

This is krw logic. He is disagreeing with me - I can't imagine that I'm wrong so he must believe that I'm right, so he has to be lying.

No, you're lying as every honest person knows the libs have been howling
about Trump colluding with Russia since 2016.

But Trader4 can't find a single example.

It's like denying that air exists. Should I "prove" that too, stupid?

And if KRW said you're a lying lib, he's right.

In his mind, of course he is.

No, no, no, you've DEMONSTRATED it here over and over, like just now,
lying that the libs in the US have not been howling about Trump colluding
with Russia since 2016. I mean, really.




You appear to suffer from the same kind of cognitive deficit.

I could invite you to spot the logical fallacy in that train of logic, but that would be way above your pay grade.

snip

I could invite you to learn how to trim posts, but it would be futile.

I do trim posts all the time.

That's another lie.




I do try to avoid text-chopping.

Would you like to explain the distinction?

snip

He did rule out collusion. The hush money paid to Stormy Daniels was "election meddling" and should have been reported as an election expense.

snip

BS. Trump had plenty of other motives to try to buy silence. Like it
being a disaster to his marriage, Melania, his family and the Trump brand.

He's had several marriages, and none the previous marriages ended well, which doesn't seem to have damaged the Trump brand with anybody silly enough to take it at face value.

Irrelevant of course to the fact that any fair person would recognize that
money that Trump paid PERSONALLY would serve more purposes than just helping his election. But then you're not fair.

Trader4 thinks that he's a "fair" person, and that anybody who doesn't share his particular delusions is being "unfair". Pity about that.

It wouldn't have helped his election campaign if the current marriage had fallen apart during the campaign.

And it would have hurt Melania, Baron, his other kids, the Trump brand, etc. Good grief, you're either incredibly stupid or just totally biased.
Actually, it's both.

Trump has had several failed marriages, which clearly hurt the family members involved.

Irrelevant, stupid. If you burn yourself once on a hot stove, does that
mean that you then want to repeat it?

Trump has "burnt himself" several times on that hot stove, and it hasn't seemed to have discouraged him from behaving badly every time.

Irrelevant of course to the point that Trump would clearly have personal
benefit and business benefit from paying a woman to shut up. So, how
does one allocate that $100K?

His antics them didn't show any desire not to hurt those family members.. The proposition that he has finally found true love with Melina isn't exactly plausible. Donald Trump loves Donald Trump and there's no room for anybody else in that relationship.

So, smart guy, where is the federal form to figure out how to apportion the $100K between those categories and the campaign.

Who needs a form?

That one went right over your head too. The point is, if such an expenditure is to be treated correctly, then where is the federal form, the rules,the procedure to establish what percent of the payment was for personal benefit and what percent is to be treated as a campaign expenditure? That there is no form, no rules, speaks for itself.

Your idea that such an expense might be "treated correctly" implies the existence of such proceduree,

No it doesn't, stupid. I specifically asked where are the rules, the guidelines, the procedure the forms, whereby a candidate decides how
much of a payment to a woman to shut her up is a personal expense and how much is a campaign expense. It was rhetorical, because it doesn't exist.

The stupidity is all yours. You want to invoke a generally applicable rule - you talk about "treated correctly" - then complain that there isn't a specific rule for that particular case, when custom and precedent provide all the guidance necessary.

Show us where other candidates have paid women to keep them quiet with
campaign funds, where they have treated it as campaign expense. You can't.
If Hillary went out and spent $25K for liposuction to try to smooth down
those fat thighs, she'd be required to run that money through the
campaign, right? She would have to use campaign money, have the campaign
pay the bill, because it;s obviously an attempt to influence the voters,
by making her look better. Of course if she did that, why then it would
be the Republicans screeching that she committed a felony, that she used
campaign money for a personal expense. See how that works?
She's be required to use campaign money to pay for i

which you then tell us don't exist. You demonstrate your stupidity more or less non-stop.

He's never before gone to any trouble to avoid looking like a sleaze-bag, so the whole expenditure in on the election campaign.

And you ignored the central tennent here, which is they claim it had to be treated as a campaign donation.

No. As an election expenditure.

Both actually. If it was just a campaign expenditure, then Trump would have no direct responsibility, he was not filing the forms.

He told Michael Cohen to pay her off, but denied that he had done it.

So, Trump is a liar, big surprise there.

And responsible for the payoff, though he tried to hide this.

And he paid her off for at least partly personal reasons and it was his
right to hide it.

You can try to evade responsibility that way, but once Michael Cohen got nailed, it stopped working.

They were after Trump on the angle that it if you consider paying off a woman to shut her up, then it's a CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTION and TRUMP, would have been personally responsible to report it as a CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTION.. That's right, the big stink is that Trump, who could give as much as he pleased to his own campaign, was supposed to have committed a crime by not putting it on a form.

That's exactly right.

Except of course that it was a personal expense. And if he had the campaign
pay for it instead, why then you libs would be screaming that he committed
a crime, he used CAMPAIGN MONEY FOR A PERSONAL EXPENSE.

It was an election expenditure - where the money came from isn't necessarily material.

How did that work out the only time the govt ever tried to prosecute that?
They had a far better case against John Edwards. Being a Democrat, he didn't
use his own money to pay off his woman, he went to other people and solicited
money from them! They paid her. So, you had a double banger. Those people
made illegal campaign donations that exceeded the limits of the law, the
govt claimed it was a campaign expenditure and they had a conspiracy.
And what happened? The jury acquitted on one charge and the govt, knowing
how the jury split, folded up their tent and dropped the remaining charges.

And what you fail to address is that if instead, the Trump campaign had paid Stormy $100K using CAMPAIGN FUNDS, why then Trump and the campaign would be
charged with using campaign funds for a PERSONAL expense!

I doubt if they would have been worried about the personal expense angle.

Oh BS! That WOULD BE A CRIME! You don't think anyone cares if a candidate
uses campaign money for personal expenses? Two Congressmen were indicted
last year for exactly that!

That's different problem. They weren't trying to influence the outcome of an election.

Stupid, the crime isn't 'influencing an election'. That'a perfectly legal,
it's what politicians do to win. The crime was using campaign money for
a personal expense and that's exactly what the howling libs like you would
be screaming about if Trump had done what you say he had to do, which is
pay Stormy out of campaign funds.

And that's exactly what you libs would be claiming and with that court case, you likely could get a conviction. They'd be screaming, Trump paid off a porn star with campaign money!

The problem isn't where the money came from, but that it was paid out to influence the election without being reported as an election expense.

Again, get this through your thick lib skull. If it was of benefit to the
campaign, then it was also of benefit to Trump personally and to his
business. So, again, how does one allocate the $100K into those categories?

You don't have to bother. The question is whether it was intended to influence the outcome of the election. That Trump might have had additional motivations doesn't come into it.

Really? Show us where in the law it says that. Oh, and how did it work
out when the govt tried that in court with John Edwards? They had a super
case. Edwards, a DEMOCRAT, didn't use his own money, he went to others and
got them to pay his woman. They had illegal campaign contribution charges,
they had a conspiracy, they had way more than the Trump case. The govt
lost and went home.

snipped possible precedent - Trader4 gets this kind of stuff wrong all the time. "Moylan said he doesn’t think the failure of the Edwards prosecution means the episode involving Cohen and Clifford couldn’t be prosecuted, but said he thinks the outcome of that trial would be a factor."

So, I'm still waiting for someone to explain how you can pay a woman legally.

Do it before the election campaign is under way.

Stormy and that prick Avenatti were not extorting Trump before the
campaign, idiot.

So they too figured that Trump would never have paid up if he hadn't been an election candidate, which emphasises that the payment was made to influence the outcome of the election.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

They sure couldn't prove it in the Edwards case, eh? Which is why the
prosecutors here didn't try it with Trump, because even they knew the result
would be the same, unless it was a kangaroo court, which would be your
specialty.

 

[Whoey Louie]

On Friday, August 16, 2019 at 12:42:27 AM UTC-4, DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:

Whoey Louie <trader4@optonline.net> wrote in
news:b6561e8e-86db-4fa1-a90e-aabe23f119fb@googlegroups.com:

Maybe that's the source of much of your anger?

You're an abject idiot. I am not angry

You show lots of anger in almost every post.




and you have zero assesment

skills.

You hate Trump so
much,

My dislike for (not hate) Donald J. Trump is about his criminal
lifelong NYC Landlord scum lowlife character.

ROFL. Trump may be a scum, but there is zero evidence that he's been
a lifelong criminal. But that kind of nonsense is put forth by those
that hate him, they can't think straight.

yet you just told us that you are a Republican?

No. I mentioned it years ago, you retarded twerp.

I don't mean that you just said it for the very first time. I mean you
just said it in one of your last posts.



I am a

republican. A true republican. Unlike immature dopey little
lardassed retarded punks like you blaming folks and calling folks
'libs' as if that has some meaning other than to show your lack of
depth.

Well, that's quite amazing that you don;t understand the meaning of
'lib', which is slang for 'liberal". You deny that the word liberal
has any meaning in a political context? And you're a Republican?

You ranted on about how Hillary wasn't negligent in handling classified
information, how the poor dear couldn't even remember how to handle
classified info because her brain is small and new stuff just keeps
overwriting old stuff. And you're a Republican?

Wow, that's
something that would have you hating yourself and angry.

Again, your capacity to make a valid assessment of adult human
behavior rests frimly at nil, child.

Trump IS
the Republican Party,

No, dumbfuck. Trump got backed by the republican party because
they knew he was going to win with them in control of the electoral
college,

The Republicans don't control the Electoral College, stupid. Neither do
the Democrats.



so they all got behind him. He selected Republican to run

under. He was formerly a democrat, and prior to that, he was just a
zero party total retard. He has retained the total retard aspect,
but he has sullied the party, and they know it. A number of them are
currently shooting themselves in the head to remain behind the stupid
bastard, much less the foot. It will bite them all in the ass. It
will take many years for Americans to trust republican characterless
assholes like Ryan (whom did once have character)or McConnell (whom
made deals with russians under sanction, a crime).

That's assuming there even is a Republican Party post Trump. One day
you must tell us all about this deal that McConnell made with the
Russians that's a crime. Have you called the FBI?




No, he is not the
> party. At best, he is now a puppet of the party

You have that totally backwards. The party is Trump's puppet. He lies
and they mostly swear to it.




and any crazy way he

puts things can be blamed on him now, so he is a republican joy in a
small way, but a nightmare in most. It will bite all of them in the
ass real soon. He will be impeached and it will succeed. Criminal
charges will follow.

And on what charges? It would seem to convict someone on criminal
charges you actually need some. As for impeachment, it's very unlikely.
The Democrats just want to keep the talk alive, to keep Trump wounded.
The Democrats in control most likely won't let it happen. But even if
they did, there is no way the Senate is going to vote to remove him.
The only thing that would change that is if there is something totally
new that's uncovered, that we haven't heard about. And meanwhile, if
they try to impeach him on weak charges, it could very easily backfire
very badly. The country wants to move on, they want Congress to work
on real problems. The Trump problem, there is an election in a year.





> I hope Scotland charges him with crimes too.

Oh. my. And then you deny that you hate Trump.

The party will suffer because they stood behind an absolute fucking
characterless lunatic. If he had any character, maybe they could
have gotten away with some of their stupid shit. But the mouthy
dumbfuck makes it blatantly apparent that the party is for industry,
not the general citizenry.

And yet after saying all that, you're a member of that party, so you
are one of those enabling him!
What do you think would happen if the RNC realized that 10% or 25% of
Republicans had left the party? That's what George Will did, it's
what Bill Cristol did, it's what I did. I won't be associated with it,
I won't enable Trump.

he hijacked it and anyone who is still a
Republican is just enabling him.

You are an idiot. Many republicans are speaking out against him.
Wake the fuck up, you retarded dumbfuck.

You can count the number of Republicans that have really spoken out
against Trump on the fingers of your hands. And it's rarely, if ever,
any Republican of any consequence. The ones that have spoken out mostly only
have a tepid response to something Trump just said or did. They are
not saying he's unfit, divisive, mental, immature, etc. That's very
true of virtually every Republican in Congress. There is one Congressman
who just recently denounced him and he'll probably lose his seat in 2020.
There are some Republicans, like George Will and Bill Cristol, but they
are the exceptions and not many are listening. And for every one of them,
there are a hundred Sean Hannitys, Rushs, Mark Levins, etc.

The very best example was when Trump came back from his BS meeting with
Kim Jung Un. Trump proclaimed that the threat from NK nukes is over,
that he trusts KJU, that he's sure that KJU is denuclearizing right now.
How many Republicans said that was stupid, crazy and a danger to national
security? I don't know of a single one. And we all know that if Obama
or any Democrat had done that, the Republicans would be all over it.
The whole party has become a sad sack of hypocrisy and stupidity.

Maybe your lib buddy Bill can
explain it to you.

Maybe you can keep your retared, miles off the mark, unsolicited,
uneducated, unprofessional assessments of others to yourself.

Or post your name and address, and I will stop by some time and we
can discuss it for a few seconds. I promise the meeting will be a
one time thing and that afterwards you will never have another worry.
Until you next awake naked before christ as he sends you to burn in
hell for eternity.

How very poignant. Invoke Jesus and Christianity while making a death
threat. I will add that latest threat to my file so it's here on
record in case you try something. At some point, it will be my duty
to contact the authorities, maybe they can get some help for you.

 

[Cursitor Doom]

On Thu, 15 Aug 2019 16:46:52 -0700, Whoey Louie wrote:

No, you're lying as every honest person knows the libs have been howling
about Trump colluding with Russia since 2016. And if KRW said you're a
lying lib, he's right.

Only *half* right. Bill is no liberal. In fact there is very little
classically Liberal about the so-called "neo-Liberal democracies" of the
modern West - and precious little democratic about them, either. Sloman
is actually a pro Globalist Cultural Marxist-Anarchist but he won't admit
it of course. If you follow his lines of "reasoning" however, you will
quickly see this evidenced for yourself.



--
This message may be freely reproduced without limit or charge only via
the Usenet protocol. Reproduction in whole or part through other
protocols, whether for profit or not, is conditional upon a charge of
GBP10.00 per reproduction. Publication in this manner via non-Usenet
protocols constitutes acceptance of this condition.

 

[Cursitor Doom]

On Fri, 16 Aug 2019 13:04:53 +0800, Rheilly Phoull wrote:

On 16/08/2019 12:42 pm, DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno@decadence.org wrote:

Or post your name and address, and I will stop by some time and we
can discuss it for a few seconds. I promise the meeting will be a one
time thing and that afterwards you will never have another worry.

Another *virtual* "tough guy" LOL! :-D




--
This message may be freely reproduced without limit or charge only via
the Usenet protocol. Reproduction in whole or part through other
protocols, whether for profit or not, is conditional upon a charge of
GBP10.00 per reproduction. Publication in this manner via non-Usenet
protocols constitutes acceptance of this condition.

 

[Whoey Louie]

On Friday, August 16, 2019 at 2:42:37 PM UTC-4, Cursitor Doom wrote:

On Thu, 15 Aug 2019 16:46:52 -0700, Whoey Louie wrote:

No, you're lying as every honest person knows the libs have been howling
about Trump colluding with Russia since 2016. And if KRW said you're a
lying lib, he's right.

Only *half* right. Bill is no liberal. In fact there is very little
classically Liberal about the so-called "neo-Liberal democracies" of the
modern West - and precious little democratic about them, either. Sloman
is actually a pro Globalist Cultural Marxist-Anarchist but he won't admit
it of course. If you follow his lines of "reasoning" however, you will
quickly see this evidenced for yourself.

Well, whatever he is, he's a real piece of work. To deny that the libs
here in the US have been howling about Trump and Russian collusion since
2016 is obviously lying and incredibly stupid lying at that. He thinks
I need to prove it. ROFL They must put stupid in the water down under.

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Saturday, August 17, 2019 at 12:21:19 AM UTC+10, Whoey Louie wrote:

On Thursday, August 15, 2019 at 11:01:16 PM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Friday, August 16, 2019 at 9:46:56 AM UTC+10, Whoey Louie wrote:
On Thursday, August 15, 2019 at 12:11:27 AM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:

It's no surprise you won't admit that the libs have been screeching about Trump colluding with the Russians since 2016. It's what libs do, they lie.

This is krw logic. He is disagreeing with me - I can't imagine that I'm wrong so he must believe that I'm right, so he has to be lying.

No, you're lying as every honest person knows the libs have been howling
about Trump colluding with Russia since 2016.

But Trader4 can't find a single example.

It's like denying that air exists. Should I "prove" that too, stupid?

Trader4 thinks that "it is like denying that air exists", and thinks that his declaration lets him off the hook. He is remarkably stupid, even compared with the other right-wing half-wits who post here.

And if KRW said you're a lying lib, he's right.

In his mind, of course he is.

No, no, no, you've DEMONSTRATED it here over and over, like just now,
lying that the libs in the US have not been howling about Trump colluding
with Russia since 2016. I mean, really.

Like krw, thinks that pointing out that some assertion doesn't fit his point of view is equivalent to proving it to be a correct assertion. Krw thinks like that because most of his brain seems to have turned off years ago. Trader4 is merely stupid enough to think that argument by repeated assertion is persuasive.

You appear to suffer from the same kind of cognitive deficit.

I could invite you to spot the logical fallacy in that train of logic, but that would be way above your pay grade.

snip

I could invite you to learn how to trim posts, but it would be futile..

I do trim posts all the time.

That's another lie.

Directly below a snip I'd made. Nice one Trader4.

I do try to avoid text-chopping.

Would you like to explain the distinction?

He didn't feel like making the effort.

snip

He did rule out collusion. The hush money paid to Stormy Daniels was "election meddling" and should have been reported as an election expense.

snip

BS. Trump had plenty of other motives to try to buy silence. Like it being a disaster to his marriage, Melania, his family and the Trump brand.

He's had several marriages, and none the previous marriages ended well, which doesn't seem to have damaged the Trump brand with anybody silly enough to take it at face value.

Irrelevant of course to the fact that any fair person would recognize that money that Trump paid PERSONALLY would serve more purposes than just helping his election. But then you're not fair.

Trader4 thinks that he's a "fair" person, and that anybody who doesn't share his particular delusions is being "unfair". Pity about that.

It wouldn't have helped his election campaign if the current marriage had fallen apart during the campaign.

And it would have hurt Melania, Baron, his other kids, the Trump brand, etc. Good grief, you're either incredibly stupid or just totally biased.
Actually, it's both.

Trump has had several failed marriages, which clearly hurt the family members involved.

Irrelevant, stupid. If you burn yourself once on a hot stove, does that
mean that you then want to repeat it?

Trump has "burnt himself" several times on that hot stove, and it hasn't seemed to have discouraged him from behaving badly every time.

Irrelevant of course to the point that Trump would clearly have personal
benefit and business benefit from paying a woman to shut up. So, how
does one allocate that $100K?

One doesn't have to. The point is that it was paid, and one of the considerations was the effect on the election outcome.

His antics them didn't show any desire not to hurt those family members. The proposition that he has finally found true love with Melina isn't exactly plausible. Donald Trump loves Donald Trump and there's no room for anybody else in that relationship.

So, smart guy, where is the federal form to figure out how to apportion the $100K between those categories and the campaign.

Who needs a form?

That one went right over your head too. The point is, if such an expenditure is to be treated correctly, then where is the federal form, the rules,the procedure to establish what percent of the payment was for personal benefit and what percent is to be treated as a campaign expenditure? That there is no form, no rules, speaks for itself.

Your idea that such an expense might be "treated correctly" implies the existence of such proceduree,

No it doesn't, stupid. I specifically asked where are the rules, the guidelines, the procedure the forms, whereby a candidate decides how
much of a payment to a woman to shut her up is a personal expense and how much is a campaign expense. It was rhetorical, because it doesn't exist.

It was stupid, because your phrase "treated correctly" acknowledges that there are general rules for that kind of thing.

And the point you are trying to make is a foolish distraction. The fact that the payment was made, and one of it's effects was to help Trump's election chances is all that the prosecution has to establish. The other purposes that the payment might have served don't come into it.

The stupidity is all yours. You want to invoke a generally applicable rule - you talk about "treated correctly" - then complain that there isn't a specific rule for that particular case, when custom and precedent provide all the guidance necessary.

<snip>

He's never before gone to any trouble to avoid looking like a sleaze-bag, so the whole expenditure in on the election campaign.

And you ignored the central tenet here, which is they claim it had to be treated as a campaign donation.

No. As an election expenditure.

Both actually. If it was just a campaign expenditure, then Trump would have no direct responsibility, he was not filing the forms.

He told Michael Cohen to pay her off, but denied that he had done it.

So, Trump is a liar, big surprise there.

And responsible for the payoff, though he tried to hide this.

And he paid her off for at least partly personal reasons and it was his
right to hide it.

As an election candidate, he didn't have that right. Pity about that.

<snip>

And what you fail to address is that if instead, the Trump campaign had paid Stormy $100K using CAMPAIGN FUNDS, why then Trump and the campaign would be charged with using campaign funds for a PERSONAL expense!

I doubt if they would have been worried about the personal expense angle.

Oh BS! That WOULD BE A CRIME! You don't think anyone cares if a candidate
uses campaign money for personal expenses? Two Congressmen were indicted
last year for exactly that!

That's different problem. They weren't trying to influence the outcome of an election.

Stupid, the crime isn't 'influencing an election'. That's perfectly legal,
it's what politicians do to win.

But they have to document the money they spend to win it. In more civilised countries there limits on what they can spend.

> The crime was using campaign money for a personal expense and that's exactly what the howling libs like you would be screaming about if Trump had done what you say he had to do, which is pay Stormy out of campaign funds.

No. The crime was spending money to improve his chance of getting elected, and not reporting the expenditure.

<snip>

snipped possible precedent - Trader4 gets this kind of stuff wrong all the time. "Moylan said he doesn’t think the failure of the Edwards prosecution means the episode involving Cohen and Clifford couldn’t be prosecuted, but said he thinks the outcome of that trial would be a factor."

So, I'm still waiting for someone to explain how you can pay a woman legally.

Do it before the election campaign is under way.

Stormy and that prick Avenatti were not extorting Trump before the
campaign, idiot.

So they too figured that Trump would never have paid up if he hadn't been an election candidate, which emphasises that the payment was made to influence the outcome of the election.

They sure couldn't prove it in the Edwards case, eh?

Circumstances alter cases.

> Which is why the prosecutors here didn't try it with Trump, because even they knew the result would be the same, unless it was a kangaroo court, which would be your specialty.

Wrong. As Mueller pointed out, you can't charge a sitting president with a crime - all you can do is impeach him. Which is to say, get Congress and the Senate to try him. After Trump gets booted out in 2020 he'll be fair game, to be tried in a less partisan court. Mueller did seem to think that there might be a case to answer then, but it wasn't his job to put it together.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Saturday, August 17, 2019 at 12:30:29 AM UTC+10, Whoey Louie wrote:

On Thursday, August 15, 2019 at 11:14:21 PM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Friday, August 16, 2019 at 12:10:32 PM UTC+10, Whoey Louie wrote:
On Thursday, August 15, 2019 at 8:39:45 PM UTC-4, DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:
Whoey Louie <trader4@optonline.net> wrote in news:c64bd557-2d08-49e8-
854e-0eaa43556f33@googlegroups.com:

Well, obviously they were wrong.

No, they were not. Obviously you make shit up.

He committed the crime and the crime of him asking them to do so in
public is enough. Crime is crime. Trump is a foreign enemy of the
state colluder. He should face a firing squad.

Maybe that's the source of much of your anger? You hate Trump so much, yet you just told us that you are a Republican? Wow, that's something that would have you hating yourself and angry. Trump IS the Republican Party, he hijacked it and anyone who is still a Republican is just enabling him.

Actually the Koch brothers hijacked the Republican Party first - remember the Tea Party, which was a Koch-funded astro-turfing operation - and got rid of anybody who wasn't a repulsive right-wing lunatic.

Actually the Republican Party became more conservative and fed up with
candidates who claim to be Republicans, but when elected act like
Democrats. The Democratic Party has gone far, extreme lib left, but
I don't see you bitching about that or blaming George Soros.

Obviously not, mainly because it is right wing nonsense. The idea that George Soros is spending money on subverting the Democrats in the way that the Koch brothers did with the Tea Party movement may appeal to right wingers because they saw it happen to what used to be the Republican Party, but there's zero evidence that anything like this has happened.

By international standards the Democrats are extremely middle of the road. Even Bernie Sanders is just peddling standard European social democracy.

Rabid right-winger like krw and James Arthur can't see any difference betweem multi-party democratic socialism, and ostensibly socialist one party states like the former Soviet Union, China and North Korea, this may not register with Trader4 who is just as right-wing, and even more stupid.

Trump became the Republican Party's nominee because - despite being a repulsive jerk - because all the other candidates were even more repulsive, and inept with it.

No, you have that all wrong. Trump became the nominee because the GOP
read the voters correctly and saw that they wanted someone knew, someone
who wasn't a politician and they were willing to overlook all of Trump's
defects.

The people running the GOP tried very hard to block Trump, but their alternative candidates were even more repulsive - albeit in different ways.

They were very unhappy about Trump's numerous flaws, but he won the nomination anyway. Quite a few of them bailed out at the is point, and what's left running the party are the totally unprincipled dregs (and, of course, the Koch brothers).

The Democrats failed to recognize that and picked a throwback
to the past, carrying a whole lot of baggage.

She was the first woman ever to run for president. The Democrats had won with Barak Obama, who had also been a break-through candidate. She got three million more popular votes than Trump, and if the Russians had spent a little less on influencing the electorates in what turned out to be the swing states, Trump probably wouldn't have got the 60,000 extra votes in the lplaces where it turned out to matter.

> And that's why Trump won the GENERAL election, because the other candidate was even more repulsive and inept. Thanks for bringing that up.

Funny how you haven't taken on board the fact that Trump lost the popular vote, big-time, and scraped home on the Russian interventions (which he may not have known about, but clearly helped him).

The tattered remnants of the Republican Party cling to Trump because he is all they have got. He only appeals to people who are as stupid as you are

That can't be the case, I didn't vote for him.

You couldn't find the voting station? You couldn't work out how to register your vote? Or you voted for an even more absurd third part candidate?

- but half the population has below average intelligence - and the Republican Party gerry-mandering may have been thorough enough to let them salvage enough votes to survive.

They have zero appeal to anybody who isn't a brain-damaged right-wing lunatic,

By that standard, 42% of the US is brain-damaged.

It's more complicated than that, but there's no point in trying to explain that to you.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Saturday, August 17, 2019 at 4:42:37 AM UTC+10, Cursitor Doom wrote:

On Thu, 15 Aug 2019 16:46:52 -0700, Whoey Louie wrote:

No, you're lying as every honest person knows the libs have been howling
about Trump colluding with Russia since 2016. And if KRW said you're a
lying lib, he's right.

Only *half* right. Bill is no liberal. In fact there is very little
classically Liberal about the so-called "neo-Liberal democracies" of the
modern West - and precious little democratic about them, either.

"Liberal" originally meant "in favour of free trade". The American used of the term to mean "somebody more left-wing than me" doesn't actually reflect that.

The "Liberal Party" in Australia is the main-stream right wing part, and while Pamela Hanson's "One Nation Party" is further to the right, it's a lunatic fringe.

> Sloman is actually a pro Globalist Cultural Marxist-Anarchist but he won't admit it of course.

These people only exist in Cursitor Doom's alternative reality. He thinks George Soros is a globalist, when - if anything - Soros is anti-globalist, but the nice simple labels that Cursitor Doom needs to keep his world-view comprehensible to him don't allow any room for real world information.

> If you follow his lines of "reasoning" however, you will quickly see this evidenced for yourself.

Only if you are as reason-immune as Cursitor Doom, who follows krw's principle of thinking that whatever he thinks is right, and any counter-evidence has to be a lie.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Saturday, August 17, 2019 at 5:29:00 AM UTC+10, Whoey Louie wrote:

On Friday, August 16, 2019 at 2:42:37 PM UTC-4, Cursitor Doom wrote:
On Thu, 15 Aug 2019 16:46:52 -0700, Whoey Louie wrote:

No, you're lying as every honest person knows the libs have been howling
about Trump colluding with Russia since 2016. And if KRW said you're a
lying lib, he's right.

<snipped Cursitor Doom beign as silly as Trader4>

Well, whatever he is, he's a real piece of work. To deny that the libs
here in the US have been howling about Trump and Russian collusion since
2016 is obviously lying and incredibly stupid lying at that.

For Trader4's definition of lying, which is the same as krw's - disagreeing with him

> He thinks I need to prove it.

No. I keep asking him to post an example of it. Then I'll be able to demonstrate that he has misunderstood what has been said. He's too stupid to find an example, and thinks he can get away with claiming that the point is "obvious" when the problem is that his perceptions are severely flawed.

> ROFL They must put stupid in the water down under.

But save the more potent version for Trader4's preferred thirst quencher.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney