jakee

Or it shows that the way the question was phrased was 'choose between those two' instead of 'tell us if you'd vote for either, or an independent / write-in, or not vote'. But don't let me stop you rushing to judge... Do you want to have an ideagasm?

You are a liar and an idiot. Do you want to have an ideagasm?

Your own links show that you're lying. The prosecutor's office certainly disagrees with you. Do you want to have an ideagasm?

The prosecutors (who you must believe since you've cited them twice now) say otherwise. And either way, it doesn't change the fact that he lied about what he did to her and tried to ruin her career over it, does it? Do you want to have an ideagasm?

Yep, that's the way conservatism works. When coal seams dry up entire towns and communities can be plunged into poverty. Right wing response to all the unemployed miners? Dole taking freeloaders, fuck 'em! Do you want to have an ideagasm?

And then after being told by the secret service to stop a potential assassin with a bomb... he forgot all about it! "Hey Corey, remember that chick yesterday at the speech?" "I dunno Don, what chick?" "The chick who broke through the secret service." "Not ringing any bells bro!" "You grabbed her away from me like the agents told you to." "Are you sure it was me?" "Of course it was you man! You must remember, she had a pen that looked like a little bomb and she was going to blow my fingers off with it" "Seriously Don, I got nothing. It's a total blank to me." "Jesus Corey, how can you not remember this, it was like 6 hours ago!" "Dude..... I smoked a lot of weed in high school, 'kay?" Do you want to have an ideagasm?

Just going to reply to this again because your bias shows so strongly on this one and you're so wrong about it. It's not about the innocuous action, it's about the response to it. And not even just the lies upon lies upon lies but the frankly malevolent character assassination to go with it. Remember that Lewandowski publicly accused Fields of being a serial fantasist in response to her absolutely 100% true statement about him. For a reporter, that is a potentially career ending allegation. Just let that sink in for a moment - he attempted to ruin this woman's career rather than admit to a simple 'innocuous action' that he clearly, provably committed. The man is pond scum, his arguments are those that a 5 year old with his hand caught in the cookie jar would use and he has Trump's full support every step of the way. Do you want to have an ideagasm?

Now? That is his mode, isn't it? Do you want to have an ideagasm?

Lol, nah. If you believe the Trump line that she barged through the Secret Service and they were so concerned that they got his campaign manager to grab her for them... I got some bridges for sale. In fact, it's retty awesome how you've managed to misinterpret this entire thread so badly. Did you do it on purpose? Do you want to have an ideagasm?

don't need a dictionary. Another lawyer whose job is to look at those types of things decided there wasn't anything to prosecute. Sorry you can't believe that or understand it. Just not your belief system and you feel like a gotcha got away from you We don't believe it because it's not true. It's not true because you lack the capacity to understand the information contained in the story you thought was supporting you. If they'd known you'd be reading it I'm sure they'd have dumbed it down some more for you, but alas they didn't. Do you want to have an ideagasm?

Yes. So what? How does that change the brazen lies he has been telling, and is still telling, ever since the incident? Not true. From your own link (Rush didn't read his own link? I'm shocked and amazed): "They acted well within their authority to investigate and make an independent charging decision. We agree that probable cause exists for the Jupiter Police Department to charge Mr. Lewandwoski in this case," Aronberg said. "Our standard is higher than probable cause. ... Although the facts support the allegation that Mr. Lewandowski did grab Ms. Fields' arm against her will, Mr. Lewandowski has a reasonable hypothesis of innocence" So, the State attorney agrees that Lewandowski did exactly what Fields accused him of doing, and exactly what he has been lying about doing ever since. As shown, certainly not simple. And certainly not if you don't care about the charges (as I said while they were still being pursued) but about the outright lies that were being told and are being told with the backing of the Trump campaign. Do you want to have an ideagasm?

Right, and everyone agrees that it shows him doing exactly what the reporter accused him of doing, and exactly what he denied and lied about. Because whether or not his actions warranted criminal prosecution is a totally different issue than whether or not his actions happened. I don't know how many more times I can explain that for you, because by now you really should get it. It cannot be dumbed down any further for you. Do you want to have an ideagasm?

Why? No, the reason for the reaction was the lies. The blatant, in your face, flying in the face of reality, unbelievable in their sheer brazenness, lies. Of course, since the mere glimpse of Trump's fake hair do causes you to have a crisis in your downstairs department I have no doubt you will continue to ignore that fact. Do you want to have an ideagasm?

I did not see any battery in the video. How about you? In the precise definition of the Florida law, yeah. That the police / DA decided it wasn't worth continuing with a prosecution is another matter, and one that no-one here was ever that bothered about. That the video shows him doing exactly what he was accused of doing is also another matter. That the video proves that he lied about it continuously and is still lying now, and that the Trump campaign is still supporting him in his lies is yet another matter. Do you want to have an ideagasm?

In what way? Do you want to have an ideagasm?

So upholding the constitution and the inherent right to justice and equality is trumped by the opinion of a small group religious ultraconservatives. No, it's more a question of whose job it is to make that determination. He represents and is employed by the state, not the USA. If the law is to be challenged shouldn't it be a Fed attorney that challenges it and a Fed court that decides? As I see it this guy can tell the state his opinion, but if they disagree, take another course of action and get sued then it's his job to defend them. Otherwise is there a difference between him and the batshit gay marriage clerk lady? Oh wait, I see from Bill's post that he's on he campaign trail. 'Splains it Normiss wasn't quoting the NC AG, but a different one in a state with a similar new law. (bolding mine) In reply to Phil: that other AG had an opinion about it being unconstitutional. However, she had to wait until federal courts overturned it (which hopefully it will be, so the constitution can be upheld). Due process. ETA: acting on her own, that other AG would be in the same camp as the marriage clerk lady! Ah, yeah I can see how my reply was confusing. I was taking Phil's response and referring back to Normiss' post about NC AG Roy Cooper - who is on the campaign trail against the governor who championed the bill, and who said he would not defend the state against lawsuits related to the bill. Hence, crazy lady comparison. Do you want to have an ideagasm?

So upholding the constitution and the inherent right to justice and equality is trumped by the opinion of a small group religious ultraconservatives. No, it's more a question of whose job it is to make that determination. He represents and is employed by the state, not the USA. If the law is to be challenged shouldn't it be a Fed attorney that challenges it and a Fed court that decides? As I see it this guy can tell the state his opinion, but if they disagree, take another course of action and get sued then it's his job to defend them. Otherwise is there a difference between him and the batshit gay marriage clerk lady? Oh wait, I see from Bill's post that he's on he campaign trail. 'Splains it Do you want to have an ideagasm?

Is he allowed to do that? I mean, I agree with him and all, but he is the State's attorney and even guilty people need a defense... Do you want to have an ideagasm?

That ain't gonna happen. Yeah, that does sound less likely than the whole locust-scorpion-horse thing... Do you want to have an ideagasm?

Haven't seen any posts here (except yours) concerned with being in the same bathroom as a transexual person. There doesn't need to have been a post about it when it was the entire reason behind the law which is now being discussed. Do you want to have an ideagasm?

Personally, I think this is part of what's wrong with our financial system now. I think that's what's wrong with our entire system, not just financial. The idea that putting money in is the only way to invest a company. The guy that actually works there and directly contributes to the success of the company every single day? Fuck that guy, we need to figure out how little we can pay him while still keeping him productive. He doesn't deserve any more than that - the real money must go to the shareholders! GOOD CEO's however don't think like that. Shareholder value is about more than just giving available money to the shareholders. They are generally playing a longer game than that. Does McDonalds have a good CEO? Does Walmart? If you really do have a cynical, purely share price driven view of business you cannot pretend that is always, or even often, going to align with the best interests of employees. If you're pinning your flag to that mast, you need to be open about the consequences. Do you want to have an ideagasm?

Personally, I think this is part of what's wrong with our financial system now. I think that's what's wrong with our entire system, not just financial. The idea that putting money in is the only way to invest a company. The guy that actually works there and directly contributes to the success of the company every single day? Fuck that guy, we need to figure out how little we can pay him while still keeping him productive. He doesn't deserve any more than that - the real money must go to the shareholders! Do you want to have an ideagasm?

Not alive. Next question. Is the world a better place because you were NOT aborted? Obviously not. He's the kind of guy who buys a cashmere rug. And what about you? Is the world a better place because your parents had sex exactly when they did and not two hours later? Do you want to have an ideagasm?

So mine did arrive yesterday. Looks fantastic, can't wait to jump it! Do you want to have an ideagasm?

You probably weren't here for his 'adolescent' phase - when everyone who disagreed with him was labelled as having juvenile or undeveloped thought processes. Or his 'I'm a counsellor' phase where he would diagnose the mental issues of anyone who ever appeared slightly annoyed at him - while his own angry posts were merely calculated attempts at poking the hornets nest to see what happens. Or his opinion of, well, every liberal. Do you want to have an ideagasm?