jakee

Indeed. Last autumn Russia fired over 1,000 cruise missiles in the space of 6 weeks, on top of the huge amounts they’d already used since the invasion began. If Slim says they’ve now only got 800 available in total that’s very good news for Ukraine.

Interesting that 80% of the Republican campaign funds came from one rich guy but Democrat fundraising came from a grassroots campaign of numerous small donors. Remind me again which party is controlled by the ‘Elites’?

Why are you voting for Kennedy when you love Trump so much?

Any reasoning for that comment apart from plain old racism? Strange that in none of the thousands of words you've wasted trying to draw an equivalence between Trump and Hillary have you ever explaned why Hillary is so bad. Almost as if there's no rational thought behind your views at all.

Sure, but you can say the same about an unfettered representative democracy. Politicians are more than capable of oppressing minorities if they’re allowed to. It’s a constitution and an independent judiciary that stops oppression by the majority from happening.

Ah yes, coffee - that famous North American crop. And no, it hasn't.

Let's also just take a moment to, uh, appreciate the stupendous level of smug, out of touch condescension involved in dismissing the abortion battle as just a 'sexy thing for young voters'.

Who do you think that partisan hackery is going to convince?

The company alleges that once news broke that Meadows was cooperating with prosecutors on October 24, sales bottomed out and the book only sold 60,000 copies. The company based the advance it paid to Meadows on anticipated sales of at least 200,000 copies. The lawsuit alleges that Meadows' testimony to the grand jury "squarely contradicts the statements in his book... that President Trump was the true winner of the 2020 election." The book alleged that the election was "stolen and rigged" with the assistance of the "liberal media." These statements in the book are directly contracted by his testimony Surely they knew they were going to get the election lie when they pitched the book in the first place. Seems more like they’re suing him for telling (some of) the truth in court then telling lies in the book. Also, they based their forecasts on 200,000 of the MAGA faithful wanting to read anything longer than a Facebook post? I don’t want to tell them their business, but sounds like it was always an optimistic plan.

The way the Republicans are obsessed with any of Biden's family dealing with any foreign entities when Trump's kids foreign dealings while officially part of the government were all done out in the open for all to see reminds me of this Frankie Boyle skit about the financial crash. "No Grannie, it was him - they showed you him doing it!"

Is that what she's calling herself now?

Right, so your point is that all those power companies should have just built their renewable projects ten years ago when investment was cheap and easy?

He might be ok on that one - in the name of free speech I think the Judge has effectively said that he is fair game - it's his staff that is off limits. But speaking of unhinged, Sidney Powell might have blown her plea deal up already, saying the prosecutor 'extorted' her guilty plea. https://www.businessinsider.com/sidney-powell-doubt-election-results-attack-prosecutors-after-guilty-plea-2023-10?r=US&IR=T

So you must think Trump is a far worse choice for President than Biden, if what you have to say about him would lead to an insta-ban even from the liberal moderators.

Lol, why are you so angry about something you were quite proud of saying? And I suppose you think it’s a clever move to ask for proof of something you said in a deleted thread, but ok you can have that one. So why do you think you’ll be banned for saying something liberal - i.e. saying something bad about Trump? Again, clearly an extremely silly excuse. So again, give a reason why Trump would be a bad president. What is it about Trump that makes you not want to vote for him?

Yet you keep talking about the same beliefs over and over again each time you come back, so it's obviously not a problem for you. You've never been suspended for saying anything bad about Trump, yet you use it as an reason to dodge the question. Come on, you know that no-one believes your bullshit excuse about being too afraid of the mods to criticise Trump at all just days after you called Michelle Obama a transsexual. So what makes Trump a bad choice for president? What don't you like about him?

You’ll be booted off this forum for saying something bad about Trump? Nah, that doesn’t scan. So go on, why don’t you like Trump? What is it that makes him a bad choice for President?

What is bad about Trump? What does he do that makes you not want to vote for him?

I have absolutely no idea, and I bet you don’t either. There is no freakin’ way you’re some kind of religious zealot who believes in biblical prophecies and this is the first time you’re mentioning it.

I'm afraid you'll have to.

It is a strange position for him to be in, isn't it? He's claiming that the American people wanted Trump to be President but god told them they were wrong and fixed it for Biden instead.

For sure. Like with Sydney Powell breaking into the election machines, tampering with them, stealing voter data and causing damage that cost a lot of money to put right. Those criminal acts were her idea and she carried them out. With support and financing from Trump, yes, but it's not like she was just a mindless henchman carrying out the bosses orders, and I think she got very, very lucky with her sentence. (Edit: at least we can hope she'll be bankrupted forever by the lawsuits though.) Plus, what's it going to look like if everyone gets a sweetheart plea deal then only Trump is locked up? That'd be some fuel for the "political prosecution!" Maga crowd.

Ahhhh the goal post shift. Why did it take so long to get to it? So when were the currently established rules established? How far back is valid? The past was always different for one reason or another - but it is your argument that what happened in the past governs what is possible in the present. So how far back is it valid to compare, and why?

"Yes he did" is even weaker. You claim he offered to leave Ukraine - prove it. More generally, you don't seem to understand what logic is. Whether or not Putin offered to leave Ukraine is a question of fact. It's not something you use logic to persuade people of, it's something you either have evidence of or you don't. If you don't, any self proclaimed logic you use is pointless. A perfect logical argument based on erroneous facts is going to result in concusions that are wrong. Just like your proclamation that it's impossible for Trump to have lost despite getting more votes the second time around. Regardless of whether your 'mathematical logic' is correct, your conclusion is wrong because your basic facts are wrong - it has happened before. Any logical person who is actually interested in the truth would admit that. Which is exactly why you refuse to.

No he didn't. But Ukraine have offered him the chance to do it from the very start. At any time he could withdraw from Ukraine, and they will let him. So he really should, shouldn't he?