jross Posted February 21 Posted February 21 It points to lunacy for anyone who supports 4 more years of this version of Democrats in 2024.
ThreePointTakedown Posted February 21 Posted February 21 1 hour ago, JimmyBT said: I can only get thru about one sentence of your psycho babble. I have more fun reading peoples responses to you. The one where the guy said “you can’t be a real person” was pretty good. It made you leave for a week or so. Bhahahahahahahah Did it? Was that the reason? Heaven forbid you are wrong about something. Could you even handle that?
Bigbrog Posted February 21 Posted February 21 2 hours ago, JimmyBT said: I can only get thru about one sentence of your psycho babble. I have more fun reading peoples responses to you. The one where the guy said “you can’t be a real person” was pretty good. It made you leave for a week or so. Bhahahahahahahah It was a good week or so wasn't it?!?! To bad he/she/they came back. 1 1
mspart Posted February 21 Posted February 21 12 hours ago, GreatWhiteNorth said: You are seriously sketchy ... very seriously sketchy. The claim that "I do not want Trump to be President" while fighting tooth and nail to support him makes no sense. Let me say it again - what you're posting here makes no sense. Art... it's starting to feel like you aren't who you say you are. And your motivations aren't what you claim them to be. I'll type it again very slowly so you can understand. I am not fighting for Trump, I do not want him to run for President. Less Trump the better. What I am upset about, and I made clear in my post, is the bastardization of the judicial branch to be a clearing house for corruption. I find this very corrupt. A DA that ran on getting Trump no matter what. Can't find a criminal code worthy so goes the civil route. A Judge who clearly had it out for Trump and this was apparent from the beginning. A DA that will not prosecute felons but will prosecute Trump. Another DA that filed RICO against Trump and hired her lover for large sums of money that she participated in and expected to - corruption. A DOJ prosecution for classified papers that only applies to Trump, not Biden or Hillary. They get a pass because they are of the right persuasion and not Trump. I hope you are seeing a pattern here. Justice is supposed to be blind but seems to favor those that are favored and not for those that are not. This is also seen in every city where police arrest and the DA does not prosecute for some woke reason or judges do not hear the cases because the perp is the wrong race, gender, or is a homeless drug addict. There is a terrible issue of the justice system focusing on the perp and not the victim. It is not that I am concerned for Trump, I am concerned about our nation as a whole. We cannot survive long with a justice system that picks winners and losers based on who they are or who they are not, and not by what they have done and apply the law to that. Did I type that out slow enough for you? mspart 2
mspart Posted February 21 Posted February 21 12 hours ago, GreatWhiteNorth said: ... and NOW you're posting about Hilary? You're diggin' deep to support the orange candidate. C'mon Art. You might as well post about how bad Washington's wooden teeth were. Let history go. History informs us of the direction we are going. Yes I bring up Hillary because she was caught red handed and nothing happened to her. Biden was caught red handed with classified info he had no right to. He got a pass. Trump was caught red handed and gets the book thrown at him. I'll tell you why. Comey said Hillary did it but that no reasonable person would prosecute, even after destroying subpoenaed evidence. Hur said Biden did it and should be liable but was so amiable, kind hearted and so forgetful that no jury would find him guilty. Is that the level of judicial reasoning you are comfortable with? Trump is generally hated by the system so he gets no such consideration. It's because of who he is, and not what he did. The others got off because of who they are and not because of what they did. History informs us of what is happening in the present. Those who do not learn from history are destined to repeat it. Let history go? That is the tactic of someone who doesn't have a concrete position from which to argue effectively. Rather than put out reasoned rhetoric, the attack is personal. The last gasp of a lost cause. mspart
mspart Posted February 21 Posted February 21 4 hours ago, Wrestleknownothing said: Maybe it is just me, but it seems like more often than used to be the case, we are voting against a candidate rather than voting for a candidate. I know that has been the case for me in the past several presidential elections. But I am of the opposite view. I will hold my nose and vote for Biden because I cannot, in good conscience, vote for Trump. I can understand you don't want to vote for Trump. But why not vote for someone other than Biden? Green, Libertarian, Socialist, Unified (Manchin), etc. You are saying you'll vote for someone who cannot lead and therefore has to have others tell him what to do and what to say and what to sign? In other words, you are voting to be led by un-elected appointees rather than by the person you voted for. And that is a sane position? mspart
JimmyBT Posted February 21 Posted February 21 2 hours ago, ThreePointTakedown said: Did it? Was that the reason? Heaven forbid you are wrong about something. Could you even handle that? Even if it was pure coincidence I’ll take it. Bahahahahhahahaha
JimmyBT Posted February 21 Posted February 21 2 hours ago, ThreePointTakedown said: Did it? Was that the reason? Heaven forbid you are wrong about something. Could you even handle that? The way you handled being wrong was gold standard. Bahhahahahahahahha
Wrestleknownothing Posted February 21 Posted February 21 10 minutes ago, mspart said: I can understand you don't want to vote for Trump. But why not vote for someone other than Biden? Green, Libertarian, Socialist, Unified (Manchin), etc. You are saying you'll vote for someone who cannot lead and therefore has to have others tell him what to do and what to say and what to sign? In other words, you are voting to be led by un-elected appointees rather than by the person you voted for. And that is a sane position? mspart How is voting for Green, Libertarian, Socialist, Unified, etc. a sane position? That is a timid vote for the one guy I said I would not vote for. Drowning in data, but thirsting for knowledge
Ohio Elite Posted February 21 Posted February 21 I have no idea if this is true. But it is interesting.
Wrestleknownothing Posted February 21 Posted February 21 (edited) 12 minutes ago, Ohio Elite said: I have no idea if this is true. But it is interesting. It is true. Using today's price the deal is worth about $3.3 billion to Trump. This deal looks highly likely to go through, too. As a SPAC investor, you put in $10 per share then look for a company to buy. Before the merger is complete they have the option to get their $10 back, plus interest. So if the SPAC is trading at $10ish or less, it is a pretty good sign they will ask for their money back rather than go through with the merger. But DWAC is trading around $43, so that is a pretty good sign the investors will want to go through with the merger. They obviously think Truth Social is worth more than $10 per share. Is one one to look at it. Another way to look at it is anyone who owns the SPAC is a Trump fan and is not exactly doing cash flow analysis to come up with what they think a merger between DWAC and Truth Social should be worth. They just do not care. They just want a piece of Trump. And now they can get it. What would they pay for that? Apparently $43. Edited February 21 by Wrestleknownothing 2 Drowning in data, but thirsting for knowledge
mspart Posted February 21 Posted February 21 43 minutes ago, Wrestleknownothing said: How is voting for Green, Libertarian, Socialist, Unified, etc. a sane position? That is a timid vote for the one guy I said I would not vote for. I'd say it is more sane than voting for a alzheimers guy who as Hur said has a not too good memory. I guess I think it is better to vote for a leader than the people who tell the guy what to do when how to say it. Again, I can understand you not wanting to vote Green etc, but to vote for a guy who cannot lead because he is impaired does not sound like a good choice to make. That really is voting for micky mouse in my opinion. But I don't want to continue this. People vote for who they are going to vote for. As long as voting is still a thing, a vote is good. mspart
Wrestleknownothing Posted February 21 Posted February 21 1 minute ago, mspart said: I'd say it is more sane than voting for a alzheimers guy who as Hur said has a not too good memory. I guess I think it is better to vote for a leader than the people who tell the guy what to do when how to say it. Again, I can understand you not wanting to vote Green etc, but to vote for a guy who cannot lead because he is impaired does not sound like a good choice to make. That really is voting for micky mouse in my opinion. But I don't want to continue this. People vote for who they are going to vote for. As long as voting is still a thing, a vote is good. mspart I understand your concerns. And I share some of them. Though not as extremely as you. My argument is more mathematical. If I vote for a candidate that does not have a chance to win, I am actually making it easier for the candidate I do not want to win. So in that way a vote for a certain loser is really a partial vote (i.e. timid vote) for the candidate I do not want to win. When all you are faced with is bad choices, you will make a bad choice. I am just trying to avoid a worse choice. Drowning in data, but thirsting for knowledge
JimmyBT Posted February 21 Posted February 21 1 hour ago, Wrestleknownothing said: I understand your concerns. And I share some of them. Though not as extremely as you. My argument is more mathematical. If I vote for a candidate that does not have a chance to win, I am actually making it easier for the candidate I do not want to win. So in that way a vote for a certain loser is really a partial vote (i.e. timid vote) for the candidate I do not want to win. When all you are faced with is bad choices, you will make a bad choice. I am just trying to avoid a worse choice. As am I. Avoiding the worst choice. 1
mspart Posted February 21 Posted February 21 1 hour ago, Wrestleknownothing said: I understand your concerns. And I share some of them. Though not as extremely as you. My argument is more mathematical. If I vote for a candidate that does not have a chance to win, I am actually making it easier for the candidate I do not want to win. So in that way a vote for a certain loser is really a partial vote (i.e. timid vote) for the candidate I do not want to win. When all you are faced with is bad choices, you will make a bad choice. I am just trying to avoid a worse choice. Well said. mspart
Offthemat Posted February 21 Posted February 21 2 hours ago, mspart said: History informs us of the direction we are going. Yes I bring up Hillary because she was caught red handed and nothing happened to her. Biden was caught red handed with classified info he had no right to. He got a pass. Trump was caught red handed and gets the book thrown at him. I'll tell you why. Comey said Hillary did it but that no reasonable person would prosecute, even after destroying subpoenaed evidence. Hur said Biden did it and should be liable but was so amiable, kind hearted and so forgetful that no jury would find him guilty. Is that the level of judicial reasoning you are comfortable with? Trump is generally hated by the system so he gets no such consideration. It's because of who he is, and not what he did. The others got off because of who they are and not because of what they did. History informs us of what is happening in the present. Those who do not learn from history are destined to repeat it. Let history go? That is the tactic of someone who doesn't have a concrete position from which to argue effectively. Rather than put out reasoned rhetoric, the attack is personal. The last gasp of a lost cause. mspart Well said, I would add that neither were covered by the Presidential Papers Act nor had the power of declassification that Trump enjoyed. 1
jross Posted February 21 Posted February 21 2 hours ago, Wrestleknownothing said: It is true. Using today's price the deal is worth about $3.3 billion to Trump. This deal looks highly likely to go through, too. As a SPAC investor, you put in $10 per share then look for a company to buy. Before the merger is complete they have the option to get their $10 back, plus interest. So if the SPAC is trading at $10ish or less, it is a pretty good sign they will ask for their money back rather than go through with the merger. But DWAC is trading around $43, so that is a pretty good sign the investors will want to go through with the merger. They obviously think Truth Social is worth more than $10 per share. Is one one to look at it. Another way to look at it is anyone who owns the SPAC is a Trump fan and is not exactly doing cash flow analysis to come up with what they think a merger between DWAC and Truth Social should be worth. They just do not care. They just want a piece of Trump. And now they can get it. What would they pay for that? Apparently $43. Puts on Trump Social.
jross Posted February 21 Posted February 21 How does a rational mind favor 4 more years of the current direction?
Wrestleknownothing Posted February 21 Posted February 21 57 minutes ago, jross said: Puts on Trump Social. Betting against a meme stock is not for the faint of heart. Drowning in data, but thirsting for knowledge
bnwtwg Posted February 22 Posted February 22 5 hours ago, jross said: Puts on Trump Social. Found the WSB guy i am an idiot on the internet
Ban Basketball Posted February 22 Posted February 22 (edited) 5 hours ago, jross said: How does a rational mind favor 4 more years of the current direction? I know! This pathetical cognertive mess deserves TOTAL humilerashun, and us Christian conservative Republicans blame him for his disability. And, I, as a Christian conservative Republican, want America to fail, like all of us Christian conservative Republicans want! America first, I say! Edited February 22 by Ban Basketball 1 1 Owner of over two decades of the most dangerous words on the internet! In fact, during the short life of this forum, me's culture has been cancelled three times on this very site!
Husker_Du Posted February 22 Posted February 22 Ban, the last four or so posts of yours have been poor attempts at humor. sarcastic drivel. it's of no import. and adds nothing to the conversation. just stop or you'll be gone for good. 2 1 TBD
GreatWhiteNorth Posted February 22 Author Posted February 22 10 hours ago, mspart said: I'll type it again very slowly so you can understand. I am not fighting for Trump, I do not want him to run for President. Less Trump the better. What I am upset about, and I made clear in my post, is the bastardization of the judicial branch to be a clearing house for corruption. I find this very corrupt. A DA that ran on getting Trump no matter what. Can't find a criminal code worthy so goes the civil route. A Judge who clearly had it out for Trump and this was apparent from the beginning. A DA that will not prosecute felons but will prosecute Trump. Another DA that filed RICO against Trump and hired her lover for large sums of money that she participated in and expected to - corruption. A DOJ prosecution for classified papers that only applies to Trump, not Biden or Hillary. They get a pass because they are of the right persuasion and not Trump. I hope you are seeing a pattern here. Justice is supposed to be blind but seems to favor those that are favored and not for those that are not. This is also seen in every city where police arrest and the DA does not prosecute for some woke reason or judges do not hear the cases because the perp is the wrong race, gender, or is a homeless drug addict. There is a terrible issue of the justice system focusing on the perp and not the victim. It is not that I am concerned for Trump, I am concerned about our nation as a whole. We cannot survive long with a justice system that picks winners and losers based on who they are or who they are not, and not by what they have done and apply the law to that. Did I type that out slow enough for you? mspart OK, fine. "Less Trump the better"... yet you keep bringing him up and posting support for him and against anyone that crosses him. But you do you. If being a shill for Trump suits you, then wear it with pride. Cute touch, the 'typing slowly' gig - so adorable. I'd say it never gets old except that it did, and it is. But you do you.
Husker_Du Posted February 22 Posted February 22 I want Trump to win and will be voting for him. now call me names. 3 1 TBD
GreatWhiteNorth Posted February 22 Author Posted February 22 10 hours ago, mspart said: History informs us of the direction we are going. Yes I bring up Hillary because she was caught red handed and nothing happened to her. Biden was caught red handed with classified info he had no right to. He got a pass. Trump was caught red handed and gets the book thrown at him. I'll tell you why. Comey said Hillary did it but that no reasonable person would prosecute, even after destroying subpoenaed evidence. Hur said Biden did it and should be liable but was so amiable, kind hearted and so forgetful that no jury would find him guilty. Is that the level of judicial reasoning you are comfortable with? Trump is generally hated by the system so he gets no such consideration. It's because of who he is, and not what he did. The others got off because of who they are and not because of what they did. History informs us of what is happening in the present. Those who do not learn from history are destined to repeat it. Let history go? That is the tactic of someone who doesn't have a concrete position from which to argue effectively. Rather than put out reasoned rhetoric, the attack is personal. The last gasp of a lost cause. mspart Conspiracy theory history doesn't inform of us anything other than not to believe conspiracy theories. "Red handed".., geezus. "Hilaries email server" was nothing but a con against her. Nothing happened to her because it was never a legitimate issue. At that time the DC email servers were notoriously security conscious. Anything that even had a whiff of not being right was blocked. Email was the way business got done, so DC'ers had to find alternatives. Gmail, hotmail, yahoo mail, etc. were not good choices - they retained rights to read and use any and all email content. So using a personal email server was a common choice. It's old news. We've been through this 1,000 times. Remember a guy named Colin Powell? He famously stood up and admitted this fact to everyone on the planet. That's the kind of person I wish we had more of. Had a backbone, wouldn't cave into political pressure, and called it like it really was based on his intellect (not what was being fed to him by the media.) Shitty conspiracy theories need to be let go.
Dylan Greenstein Northfield Mt. Herman, Massachusetts Class of 2025 Committed to Harvard Projected Weight: 285
Isabella Marie Gonzales Clovis East, California Class of 2025 Committed to Iowa (Women) Projected Weight: 117, 124
Maeve Witte Freehold Township, New Jersey Class of 2025 Committed to Lock Haven (Women) Projected Weight: 117
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now