Advertisement
by Proctopeo » Mon Sep 17, 2018 5:58 pm
Fartsniffage wrote:Proctopeo wrote:Making another claim doesn't count as a citation...
http://projects.thestar.com/donald-trump-fact-check/
by Fartsniffage » Mon Sep 17, 2018 6:01 pm
Proctopeo wrote:
A cursory glance does reveal that many of these are nitpicks, or minor mistakes (not "lies") on his part, but some are definitely lies.
Doesn't really mean he's the #1 liar though, there's lots and lots of other liars who are far worse.
by Kowani » Mon Sep 17, 2018 6:03 pm
Fartsniffage wrote:Proctopeo wrote:A cursory glance does reveal that many of these are nitpicks, or minor mistakes (not "lies") on his part, but some are definitely lies.
Doesn't really mean he's the #1 liar though, there's lots and lots of other liars who are far worse.
Depends how you look at it. Joe Bloggs might claim he has a 10 inch cock but that really doesn't matter. When PotUS lies it can impact the most powerful nation on the planet.
Abolitionism in the North has leagued itself with Radical Democracy, and so the Slave Power was forced to ally itself with the Money Power; that is the great fact of the age.
by Proctopeo » Mon Sep 17, 2018 6:03 pm
Fartsniffage wrote:Proctopeo wrote:A cursory glance does reveal that many of these are nitpicks, or minor mistakes (not "lies") on his part, but some are definitely lies.
Doesn't really mean he's the #1 liar though, there's lots and lots of other liars who are far worse.
Depends how you look at it. Joe Bloggs might claim he has a 10 inch cock but that really doesn't matter. When PotUS lies it can impact the most powerful nation on the planet.
by Jerzyland » Mon Sep 17, 2018 6:05 pm
Proctopeo wrote:
A cursory glance does reveal that many of these are nitpicks, or minor mistakes (not "lies") on his part, but some are definitely lies.
Doesn't really mean he's the #1 liar though, there's lots and lots of other liars who are far worse.
by Tarsonis » Mon Sep 17, 2018 6:06 pm
by Kash Island » Mon Sep 17, 2018 6:07 pm
Jerzyland wrote:Proctopeo wrote:A cursory glance does reveal that many of these are nitpicks, or minor mistakes (not "lies") on his part, but some are definitely lies.
Doesn't really mean he's the #1 liar though, there's lots and lots of other liars who are far worse.
Are you really choosing this hill to die on? That Trump isn't currently viewed as the world's most prolific liar?
by Right wing humour squad » Mon Sep 17, 2018 6:07 pm
Jerzyland wrote:Proctopeo wrote:A cursory glance does reveal that many of these are nitpicks, or minor mistakes (not "lies") on his part, but some are definitely lies.
Doesn't really mean he's the #1 liar though, there's lots and lots of other liars who are far worse.
Are you really choosing this hill to die on? That Trump isn't currently viewed as the world's most prolific liar?
by Proctopeo » Mon Sep 17, 2018 6:07 pm
Jerzyland wrote:Proctopeo wrote:A cursory glance does reveal that many of these are nitpicks, or minor mistakes (not "lies") on his part, but some are definitely lies.
Doesn't really mean he's the #1 liar though, there's lots and lots of other liars who are far worse.
Are you really choosing this hill to die on? That Trump isn't currently viewed as the world's most prolific liar?
by Fartsniffage » Mon Sep 17, 2018 6:08 pm
Proctopeo wrote:Fartsniffage wrote:
Depends how you look at it. Joe Bloggs might claim he has a 10 inch cock but that really doesn't matter. When PotUS lies it can impact the most powerful nation on the planet.
Every president lies, though. The thing that matters is the quality (and magnitude), not the quantity, of the lies. Most of his seem rather unimportant.
by Proctopeo » Mon Sep 17, 2018 6:09 pm
by Fartsniffage » Mon Sep 17, 2018 6:12 pm
by Tarsonis » Mon Sep 17, 2018 6:13 pm
Albrenia wrote:Would it be possible to launch an investigation but continue the confirmation hearing as normal? I'm not sure of SCOTUS rules about investigations and charges thereof.
by Albrenia » Mon Sep 17, 2018 6:14 pm
Tarsonis wrote:Albrenia wrote:Would it be possible to launch an investigation but continue the confirmation hearing as normal? I'm not sure of SCOTUS rules about investigations and charges thereof.
FBI could launch its own criminal investigation. They already said they won’t because there’s nothing to investigate. She accused him of doing something nearly 40 years ago, with no credible eye witnesses around to see it. It litterally can’t be vetted.
by Kash Island » Mon Sep 17, 2018 6:14 pm
Tarsonis wrote:Albrenia wrote:Would it be possible to launch an investigation but continue the confirmation hearing as normal? I'm not sure of SCOTUS rules about investigations and charges thereof.
FBI could launch its own criminal investigation. They already said they won’t because there’s nothing to investigate. She accused him of doing something nearly 40 years ago, with no credible eye witnesses around to see it. It litterally can’t be vetted.
by Jerzyland » Mon Sep 17, 2018 6:15 pm
Tarsonis wrote:Jerzyland wrote:
Former black out style alcoholic who allegedly forced himself on one young woman inside a locked bedroom at a party with his wing man;s assistance. That allegation needs investigating IMHO. And so it shall be.
Allegedly, with zero corroborating evidence beyond one person’s unsubstantiated claims.
What I said was not an oversimplification, there is absolutely zero evidence that gives this any credence. There’s no evidence to support her claims, no indication that Kavanaugh was in anyway associated with her until the July letter. I don’t know how you think that she “seems legit” beyond you’re just assuming so because he’s a conservative Trump nominee
by The South Falls » Mon Sep 17, 2018 6:16 pm
Kash Island wrote:Tarsonis wrote:
FBI could launch its own criminal investigation. They already said they won’t because there’s nothing to investigate. She accused him of doing something nearly 40 years ago, with no credible eye witnesses around to see it. It litterally can’t be vetted.
I don't think they realize this little stunt is going to blow up in their faces.
Once they find out this is complete BS I would start sueing people for whatever I could.
by Fartsniffage » Mon Sep 17, 2018 6:16 pm
Albrenia wrote:Tarsonis wrote:
FBI could launch its own criminal investigation. They already said they won’t because there’s nothing to investigate. She accused him of doing something nearly 40 years ago, with no credible eye witnesses around to see it. It litterally can’t be vetted.
Oh god, that means I'm going to have to agree with the goddamn Republicans and think there's not much that can be done besides continue then.
by Kash Island » Mon Sep 17, 2018 6:16 pm
The South Falls wrote:Kash Island wrote:
I don't think they realize this little stunt is going to blow up in their faces.
Once they find out this is complete BS I would start sueing people for whatever I could.
I mean, the republicans stunt with the last Democratically-nominated judge didn't hurt them.
Am I condoning this?
No.
Am I saying the Republicans have no leg to stand on?
Yes.
by Kash Island » Mon Sep 17, 2018 6:19 pm
by Gun Manufacturers » Mon Sep 17, 2018 6:21 pm
Jerzyland wrote:Petrasylvania wrote:Remember when Bill Clinton also received benefit of the doubt? Oh right...
Let's go with a bit more recent example. Al Franken, did he also received any benefit of the doubt? He was a comedian joking around. Kavan ugh should withdraw his nomination.
A nominee for justice on the SCOTUS must be beyond reproach. This man clearly is not.
by Kash Island » Mon Sep 17, 2018 6:22 pm
Users browsing this forum: Austria-Bohemia-Hungary, Calption, Cannot think of a name, Chernobyl and Pripyat, Dreria, Duvniask, Hrstrovokia, Lazarian, Lemmingtopias, Shidei, The North Polish Union, Torisakia, Umeria, Valyxias, Washington Resistance Army
