MAGAThread XIV: All persons born or naturalized ...

[Kaggeceria]

Idk what you mean by "you guys" but between their flag similarity and posts like this in a similar style to Gauth's I don't think it's an unfair comparison, and I certainly don't see how it's a slur or I have a weird boner lol

No no, you're right. You're bringing up a poster not currently in the conversation to attack another poster. That's not weird or obsessive at all. It most certainly is productive. I've learned so much more about the subject of the thread and the range of opinions on it via your obsession with this dude. It's great. Don't let me stop you...

Ah, more useless bitching about the posting habits of others.

You whine more than the younger posters on this site.

[Senkaku]

I mean, if you're as afraid as you say of what the government's doing with your data, you should be equally terrified about what the Big Five are doing, regardless of how laissez-faire, anti-government, pro-corporate you are. The government mostly just wants to make sure you're not a terrorist and give the Chinese stuff to try to steal, the political parties just want to win elections- but the tech companies? They want to subsume every aspect of your life and extract as much money as they possibly can from you. Do you even know how much data Google or Facebook has on you, and what they do with it (besides, of course, selling it to the government that you're already terrified of)?

What part of this should convince me that I'm in as much danger as a Jew with a Gestapo officer nearby?

did you even read the- never mind lmao I really can't be bothered

Idk what you mean by "you guys" but between their flag similarity and posts like this in a similar style to Gauth's I don't think it's an unfair comparison, and I certainly don't see how it's a slur or I have a weird boner lol

No no, you're right. You're bringing up a poster not currently in the conversation to attack another poster. That's not weird or obsessive at all. It most certainly is productive. I've learned so much more about the subject of the thread and the range of opinions on it via your obsession with this dude. It's great. Don't let me stop you...

Mentioning a fairly well known poster once is an obsession?

I'm sorry it bothered you ig lol

[Petrasylvania]

Has you guy's weird boner for Gauth now moved on to trying to make his name a slur? Weird.

Even Arch told him it wouldn’t be hard to change his flag to make it easier to tell between them. I’m pretty sure it’s not just a “boner”.

"Reading Names Is Too Hard!" And it's strange nobody reported Vass for ban dodging the couple of times I was out of the forum. :^]

[Luminesa]

Idk what you mean by "you guys" but between their flag similarity and posts like this in a similar style to Gauth's I don't think it's an unfair comparison, and I certainly don't see how it's a slur or I have a weird boner lol

No no, you're right. You're bringing up a poster not currently in the conversation to attack another poster. That's not weird or obsessive at all. It most certainly is productive. I've learned so much more about the subject of the thread and the range of opinions on it via your obsession with this dude. It's great. Don't let me stop you...

I’m supposed to feel bad about something? It’s just a matter of changing a picture on a flag. If people are confused about it because their flags and posting styles are similar, is that really such a big deal to throw a fit over?

[Luminesa]

Even Arch told him it wouldn’t be hard to change his flag to make it easier to tell between them. I’m pretty sure it’s not just a “boner”.

"Reading Names Is Too Hard!" And it's strange nobody reported Vass for ban dodging the couple of times I was out of the forum. :^]

Probably because it’s not worth it and there’s nothing of substance to report?

[Petrasylvania]

"Reading Names Is Too Hard!" And it's strange nobody reported Vass for ban dodging the couple of times I was out of the forum. :^]

Probably because it’s not worth it and there’s nothing of substance to report?

An offense that results in all of a nation's account getting deleted is somehow Not Worth It? Maybe you realize we're not the same after all? :^]

[Dahon]

Even Arch told him it wouldn’t be hard to change his flag to make it easier to tell between them. I’m pretty sure it’s not just a “boner”.

"Reading Names Is Too Hard!"

Yes. I'm sorry, but I skim at flag colors these days. Maybe you two can talk about maybe one of you changing the colors of whose flag? Just so it's less confusing who's posting which post.

[Luminesa]

Probably because it’s not worth it and there’s nothing of substance to report?

An offense that results in all of a nation's account getting deleted is somehow Not Worth It? Maybe you realize we're not the same after all? :^]

I never said you were the same, just that it’s rather strange you two have the same flags and adamantly refuse to change them because of “virtue-signaling” or “gotchas” or whatever other randomized saying you’re going to use next. It’s literally not hard, when half a forum says that they can’t tell the difference maybe it’s not just me.

[Luminesa]

"Reading Names Is Too Hard!"

Yes. I'm sorry, but I skim at flag colors these days. Maybe you two can talk about maybe one of you changing the colors of whose flag? Just so it's less confusing who's posting which post.

Case in point.

[Cannot think of a name]

No no, you're right. You're bringing up a poster not currently in the conversation to attack another poster. That's not weird or obsessive at all. It most certainly is productive. I've learned so much more about the subject of the thread and the range of opinions on it via your obsession with this dude. It's great. Don't let me stop you...

Ah, more useless bitching about the posting habits of others.

You whine more than the younger posters on this site.

I remember you now...you're that baity guy. How the fuck did you get off my ignore list? Back on it you go.

[Luminesa]

Ah, more useless bitching about the posting habits of others.

You whine more than the younger posters on this site.

I remember you now...you're that baity guy. How the fuck did you get off my ignore list? Back on it you go.

“That baity guy?” Report him if it’s such a big deal.

[Petrasylvania]

Ah, more useless bitching about the posting habits of others.

You whine more than the younger posters on this site.

I remember you now...you're that baity guy. How the fuck did you get off my ignore list? Back on it you go.

Got off it by getting DEATed and making a new account.

[Cannot think of a name]

I remember you now...you're that baity guy. How the fuck did you get off my ignore list? Back on it you go.

Got off it by getting DEATed and making a new account.

It was more rhetorical, I don't care. The point of putting them on ignore is that I can focus on the topic and not individual posters.

Speaking of the topic...

When you have a laundry list of issues with the presidency, I'm not sure why this would be the first one to pick.

House Democrats plan to push forward on a probe of whether President Donald Trump played a role in hush payments to two women in 2016 who alleged decade-old affairs with the then-Republican presidential nominee, a Democratic aide on the House Oversight Committee told NBC News.

Perhaps the impression that this is on the top of the list is a little misrepresented considering how the article arrives at the conclusion:

Pointing to that letter, the Democratic aide said Democrats on the committee began probing the payments months ago, but did not receive any of the documents Cummings had requested "because we were in the minority."

The aide, who requested anonymity to speak candidly about the investigation, added: "This should change now that we are in the majority."

[Luminesa]

Do they really think Trump hasn’t been having dozens of affairs? I don’t see why this is worth investigating.

[Petrasylvania]

Got off it by getting DEATed and making a new account.

It was more rhetorical, I don't care. The point of putting them on ignore is that I can focus on the topic and not individual posters.

Speaking of the topic...

When you have a laundry list of issues with the presidency, I'm not sure why this would be the first one to pick.

House Democrats plan to push forward on a probe of whether President Donald Trump played a role in hush payments to two women in 2016 who alleged decade-old affairs with the then-Republican presidential nominee, a Democratic aide on the House Oversight Committee told NBC News.

Perhaps the impression that this is on the top of the list is a little misrepresented considering how the article arrives at the conclusion:

Pointing to that letter, the Democratic aide said Democrats on the committee began probing the payments months ago, but did not receive any of the documents Cummings had requested "because we were in the minority."

The aide, who requested anonymity to speak candidly about the investigation, added: "This should change now that we are in the majority."

Go for something the Republican Senate can't cockblock?

[Tarsonis]

You forget that the Free Market only ever wants what is best for you and would never ever ever do anything to harm you in any way shape or form.

god I can't even tell you apart from Gauth now

Even their flags are similar

[Dahon]

Do they really think Trump hasn’t been having dozens of affairs? I don’t see why this is worth investigating.

Same here. Marital infidelity should not be a reason to impeach or censure Trump, and if the reason Trump's sexual proclivities are being investigated is to uncover evidence of financial irregularity, why not go straight for the jugular and investigate those claims of financial irregularity instead?

[Vassenor]

Do they really think Trump hasn’t been having dozens of affairs? I don’t see why this is worth investigating.

Same here. Marital infidelity should not be a reason to impeach or censure Trump, and if the reason Trump's sexual proclivities are being investigated is to uncover evidence of financial irregularity, why not go straight for the jugular and investigate those claims of financial irregularity instead?

It was enough to impeach Clinton.

[Tarsonis]

Same here. Marital infidelity should not be a reason to impeach or censure Trump, and if the reason Trump's sexual proclivities are being investigated is to uncover evidence of financial irregularity, why not go straight for the jugular and investigate those claims of financial irregularity instead?

It was enough to impeach Clinton.

Clinton lied under oath

[Ifreann]

Got off it by getting DEATed and making a new account.

It was more rhetorical, I don't care. The point of putting them on ignore is that I can focus on the topic and not individual posters.

Speaking of the topic...

When you have a laundry list of issues with the presidency, I'm not sure why this would be the first one to pick.

House Democrats plan to push forward on a probe of whether President Donald Trump played a role in hush payments to two women in 2016 who alleged decade-old affairs with the then-Republican presidential nominee, a Democratic aide on the House Oversight Committee told NBC News.

Perhaps the impression that this is on the top of the list is a little misrepresented considering how the article arrives at the conclusion:

Pointing to that letter, the Democratic aide said Democrats on the committee began probing the payments months ago, but did not receive any of the documents Cummings had requested "because we were in the minority."

The aide, who requested anonymity to speak candidly about the investigation, added: "This should change now that we are in the majority."

I'm not 100%, but I think that paying people hush money count be interpreted as campaign spending, and if so and it wasn't properly declared then Trump and/or the Trump campaign would have broken campaign finance laws. And a probe into that might better justify looking into Trump's finances than just really wanting to know what he's hiding in his tax returns.

[Petrasylvania]

It was enough to impeach Clinton.

Clinton lied under oath

They couldn't dig up any actual crime with the Whitewater deal so they had to get him on lying about a blowjob. Yeah.

[Cannot think of a name]

It was more rhetorical, I don't care. The point of putting them on ignore is that I can focus on the topic and not individual posters.

Speaking of the topic...

When you have a laundry list of issues with the presidency, I'm not sure why this would be the first one to pick.


Perhaps the impression that this is on the top of the list is a little misrepresented considering how the article arrives at the conclusion:

Go for something the Republican Senate can't cockblock?

By having the House they have investigatory powers. It really doesn't matter what they investigate, any findings all fit the same wall but it's not emoluments clause violations or the possibility that the president has financial ties that compromise him as president but a campaign violation? Yeah, it's also a violation but it doesn't seem like 'first priority' kind of thing.

Ultimately the investigations, like the fucking endless ones the Republicans did to Clinton, is to build the overall argument that Trump is unfit for office, it just seems weird to start with this one. Except I guess that there'll be enough that putting this last would seem excessive. Dunno.

[Tarsonis]

Clinton lied under oath

They couldn't dig up any actual crime with the Whitewater deal so they had to get him on lying about a blowjob. Yeah.

Even still, perjury is perjury

[Vassenor]

Clinton lied under oath

They couldn't dig up any actual crime with the Whitewater deal so they had to get him on lying about a blowjob. Yeah.

And then claimed any thing that he did was just trying to distract attention from it.

[Luminesa]

Clinton lied under oath

They couldn't dig up any actual crime with the Whitewater deal so they had to get him on lying about a blowjob. Yeah.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.co ... a-43218355

Not going to listen to Monica? What happened to listen and believe?