House Intel Panel Wants Susan Rice To Testify

[Jan2017]

The House Intelligence Committee has officially asked Susan Rice to testify.

House Republicans and Democrats have agreed upon a preliminary list of about 30 witnesses that
officials say will be expanded as needed. Formal requests to testify haven’t been sent yet by the committee to the witnesses.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-04-04/house-intel-panel-asks-susan-rice-testify


House Intel Panel Wants Susan Rice to Testify in Russia Probe
Former national security adviser says she didn’t leak any intelligence information
https://www.wsj.com/articles/susan-rice-says-obama-administration-didnt-use-intel-against-trump-associates-for-political-reasons-1491331871


Susan Rice may ‘be of interest to us,’ says Senate Intelligence chairman
The Senate Intelligence Committee chairman is not ruling out interviewing former national security adviser Susan Rice over allegations that she sought to have the identities of President Trump’s transition team revealed in foreign surveillance reports.
“If the reports are right,” Chairman Richard Burr (R-N.C.) said on Tuesday, “then she will be of interest to us.”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/powerpost/susan-rice-may-be-of-interest-to-us-says-senate-intelligence-chairman/2017/04/04/c6f58bd6-195c-11e7-855e-4824bbb5d748_story.html?utm_term=.765bab5670c8

[CPUd]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ad1kjAAhj0

[Jan2017]

Interestingly, Congressman Gowdy "grilling" rice

[dannno]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ad1kjAAhj0

Shill be.......


Comin' round the mountain when she comes...

[CPUd]

Shill be.......


Comin' round the mountain when she comes...
LOL are you high right now?

[dannno]

LOL are you high right now?

Not particularly.

[Jan2017]

Rand on Hannity brings up just how far into White House would the unmask request, or,
the leak to the Washington Post of unmasked identities go.
Did Susan Rice act all by her lonesome (?) or did she have her version of H.R. Haldeman to consent (?)

[phill4paul]

Shill be.......


Comin' round the mountain when she comes...


LOL are you high right now?


Not particularly.

I'm pretty high and I laughed. Sooooo, there's that.

[shakey1]

Interestingly, Congressman Gowdy "grilling" rice

yeah, she needs to be put on the hot seat for a while.

https://us.123rf.com/450wm/phila54/phila541409/phila54140900007/31912640-hamburgers-on-the-grill-with-stripes-outdoors.jpg?ver=6

[jmdrake]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ad1kjAAhj0

:rolleyes: -rep You're shark jumping at this point. Using an Obama administration official as your source to "prove" another Obama administration official didn't break the law is beyond stupid.


Shill be.......


Comin' round the mountain when she comes...

Yep.


LOL are you high right now?

I don't use drugs or alcohol, can't stand Donald Trump, and can see that Dannno is 100% right this time. (I think I just threw up a little in my mouth.)

[CPUd]

849365714322567169
https://twitter.com/AmbassadorRice/status/849365714322567169

[jmdrake]

849365714322567169
https://twitter.com/AmbassadorRice/status/849365714322567169

http://cf.broadsheet.ie/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/129_795_500x5001.jpg

https://i.ytimg.com/vi/MTOkOCKjLxc/hqdefault.jpg

http://i805.photobucket.com/albums/yy340/Paradoxwidget/125_125_edited-2.jpg

[CPUd]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eF3XAotKsmM

[Jan2017]

Sally "Bengazhi Spinner" Rice has been instructed to use the "I don't know" "I know nothing" line . . .
whenever she hasn't been prepped on that question -
and Cpud minutes after the OP with the Schif, a minority Intel committee member with the obfuscate comments - predictable and already wrong, WERE very funny indeed . . . +rep to danno

The very best part is that this came out after an internal audit/review by the agency(agencies) involved . . .
weeks into the Trump administration - an audit of Gowdy's "universe of possibilities"

An analyst noticed all these . . .or rather "the unusual pattern" of unmask requests from the agency "managed" by Rice . . . "dozens of them"

Like Sen. Mike Lee has said . . . "I don't know what she did" with the intel.
Let's find out.

[jmdrake]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eF3XAotKsmM

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/5/51/Fonzie_jumps_the_shark.PNG

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-wSZCFLMX4D4/TfJY7DI_w6I/AAAAAAAABXk/HulDRkBwlt4/s1600/Picture%2B17.png

http://i.imgur.com/glpWk.png

[CPUd]

President Trump’s claim, without evidence, that Susan Rice may have committed a crime


President Trump granted an interview to the New York Times, offering yet another unverified claim. The White House did little to explain his comments, not responding to a query. Although eventually a partial transcript was released, The New York Times article left the impression that Trump was referring to officials seeking the identities of Trump associates who were swept up in the surveillance of foreign officials by American spy agencies. But the actual conversation is murky, leaving open the possibility that the president thought another crime had been committed, such as leaking classified information.

“It’s such an important story for our country and the world,” Trump claimed. “It is one of the big stories of our time.”

So here’s an attempt to sort through two questions from readers about Susan Rice, who was national security adviser at the end of President Barack Obama’s term. (We previously have examined other questions about alleged surveillance of Trump.)


What kind of crime could Rice have committed?

On the face of it, Trump’s assertion is absurd. Numerous former national security officials told The Fact Checker that Rice, as national security adviser, had every right to request the identities of U.S. citizens who were incidentally recorded or referenced in surveillance conducted by the National Security Agency. Generally, intelligence reports would come to the national security adviser with the names of U.S. citizens redacted, replaced by a phrase such as “U.S. person 1.”

“To be on her desk in the first place, the report must already have intelligence in the first place or NSA would not have published it, especially if it involved any U.S. person information,” said former NSA director Michael V. Hayden. “So the original intelligence value judgment is made by a career intelligence professional at NSA.”

Hayden said that the NSA “is notoriously conservative about including U.S. person information. Once out, it’s out. Better to not include and let people ask.” Then, “when the request to unmask is made, it is adjudicated again at NSA by analysts and lawyers. Sometimes they say yes. Sometimes they say no. The basic question is does this person need this information to understand the intelligence value of this report to do their job?”

So, in theory, if Trump believes Rice committed a crime by requesting this information, he is also suggesting the analysts who approved the requests may have aided and abetted a crime. Hayden said that “is the equivalent of trying to criminalize intelligence judgment.”

Hayden added that, while lawful authority could be abused, the “unmasking story that I have heard to date on its face reflects activity that is lawful, appropriate and routine.”

As Hayden referenced, several former NSC officials suggested there could be questions raised about abuse of power. A Bloomberg opinion article said that Rice made “dozens” of requests to learn the names of individuals redacted in intelligence reports. That figure has not been confirmed. Rice, in an interview with MSNBC, simply said “there were occasions” when she requested the name “in order to understand the importance of that report and assess its significance.” She said the Obama administration did not use intelligence for political purposes, but she refused to say whether she requested the names of Trump transition officials.

The Wall Street Journal reported that the names of two U.S. citizens who were part of Trump’s transition team were unmasked in intelligence reports. One person was Michael Flynn, who served briefly as Trump’s national security adviser until he was fired for misleading other administration officials about the nature of conversations with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak. Those conversations were monitored by the NSA, but the WSJ said that Rice did not instigate Flynn’s unmasking. Instead, the WSJ said Rice requested the unmasking of another (unnamed) transition official who was “part of multiple foreign conversations that weren’t related to Russia.”

Separately, disclosing classified information to news organizations could be criminal. Rice adamantly denied she did that, saying, “I leaked nothing, to nobody, and never have and never would.” But Trump claims to have been concerned about leaks.

Rice could have discussed the information she had learned from the intelligence reports with Obama administration colleagues, who in turn might have discussed it with reporters. But Marcy Wheeler, who writes on intelligence matters, estimates that 15 to 20 people would have access just to raw intercepts, suggesting the circle of people who knew this information could be quite wide even before people in the Obama administration might have gossiped about it.


Did Rice mislead on PBS?

A separate problem for Rice is an answer she gave during a March 22 interview with PBS’s “Newshour,” in which she appeared to deny knowing whether conversations involving Trump transition officials were incidentally collected by the NSA. The program aired without the full question posed by host Judy Woodruff, just Rice’s answer. After controversy arose, PBS posted the complete back-and-forth.

Readers can judge for themselves, but Rice tends to stick to her talking points. This is what got her in trouble — and earned her Pinocchios — when she famously insisted in 2012 that the Benghazi attacks were not planned in advance, even as the Libyan president appeared on the same Sunday programs to say, “This was preplanned, predetermined.”

Rice had been invited on the PBS program to discuss Trump’s unproven claim that Obama had tapped his phones at Trump Tower. But just before the show aired, House Intelligence Chairman Devin Nunes (R-Calif.) alleged that he had seen White House documents indicating the Obama administration intercepted Trump’s campaign communications while monitoring foreign officials.

Woodruff started the interview by raising Nunes’ unexpected disclosure that Trump “and the people around him may have been caught up in surveillance of foreign individuals and that their identities may have been disclosed.” Woodruff asked: “Do you know anything about this?”

“I know nothing about this. I was surprised to see reports from Chairman Nunes on that count today,” Rice answered. She then went on with her prepared remarks: “Let’s back up and recall where we have been,” she said, beginning a spiel about alleged wiretapping of Trump Tower.

After the transcript was released, Rice tweeted that she still does not know what reports Nunes was referring to.

The truthfulness of the answer is hard to gauge. If she was just deflecting a question because she didn’t know enough about Nunes’s claims, she did it in an awkward manner. Rice’s quick dismissal raised suspicions because she appeared to say she knew nothing about a practice that we now know she actively used.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2017/04/06/president-trumps-claim-without-evidence-that-susan-rice-may-have-committed-a-crime/

[osan]

The House Intelligence Committee has officially asked Susan Rice to testify.

Asked? ASKED?! ASKED?!!!

Here we have a classic example of the grossly insufficient nature of the Constitution.

The next Amendment should state that all who take government positions, however indirectly, waive all 5A rights, may not enjoy the benefits of counsel in any proceeding relating to his official role, and will spend life in solitary confinement for any failure to comply in full and pure faith to the truth, no exceptions. Similarly, any question asked under these conditions must prove relevant. Thus and for example, unless the consumption of cocaine or engaging in homosex is demonstrably relevant to the matter at hand, such questions are prohibited, the asking placing the utterer in significant jeopardy of his freedom.

Add this and America would change literally overnight. For the better.

[jmdrake]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2017/04/06/president-trumps-claim-without-evidence-that-susan-rice-may-have-committed-a-crime/

If you read past the headlines and read the actual report you will see that the headline the Washington Post used is full of B.S. and by extension so are you.

The Wall Street Journal reported that the names of two U.S. citizens who were part of Trump’s transition team were unmasked in intelligence reports. One person was Michael Flynn, who served briefly as Trump’s national security adviser until he was fired for misleading other administration officials about the nature of conversations with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak. Those conversations were monitored by the NSA, but the WSJ said that Rice did not instigate Flynn’s unmasking. Instead, the WSJ said Rice requested the unmasking of another (unnamed) transition official who was “part of multiple foreign conversations that weren’t related to Russia.”

Separately, disclosing classified information to news organizations could be criminal. Rice adamantly denied she did that, saying, “I leaked nothing, to nobody, and never have and never would.” But Trump claims to have been concerned about leaks.

Rice could have discussed the information she had learned from the intelligence reports with Obama administration colleagues, who in turn might have discussed it with reporters. But Marcy Wheeler, who writes on intelligence matters, estimates that 15 to 20 people would have access just to raw intercepts, suggesting the circle of people who knew this information could be quite wide even before people in the Obama administration might have gossiped about it.


Did Rice mislead on PBS?

A separate problem for Rice is an answer she gave during a March 22 interview with PBS’s “Newshour,” in which she appeared to deny knowing whether conversations involving Trump transition officials were incidentally collected by the NSA. The program aired without the full question posed by host Judy Woodruff, just Rice’s answer. After controversy arose, PBS posted the complete back-and-forth.

Readers can judge for themselves, but Rice tends to stick to her talking points. This is what got her in trouble — and earned her Pinocchios — when she famously insisted in 2012 that the Benghazi attacks were not planned in advance, even as the Libyan president appeared on the same Sunday programs to say, “This was preplanned, predetermined.”

Rice had been invited on the PBS program to discuss Trump’s unproven claim that Obama had tapped his phones at Trump Tower. But just before the show aired, House Intelligence Chairman Devin Nunes (R-Calif.) alleged that he had seen White House documents indicating the Obama administration intercepted Trump’s campaign communications while monitoring foreign officials.

Woodruff started the interview by raising Nunes’ unexpected disclosure that Trump “and the people around him may have been caught up in surveillance of foreign individuals and that their identities may have been disclosed.” Woodruff asked: “Do you know anything about this?”

“I know nothing about this. I was surprised to see reports from Chairman Nunes on that count today,” Rice answered. She then went on with her prepared remarks: “Let’s back up and recall where we have been,” she said, beginning a spiel about alleged wiretapping of Trump Tower.

After the transcript was released, Rice tweeted that she still does not know what reports Nunes was referring to.

The truthfulness of the answer is hard to gauge. If she was just deflecting a question because she didn’t know enough about Nunes’s claims, she did it in an awkward manner. Rice’s quick dismissal raised suspicions because she appeared to say she knew nothing about a practice that we now know she actively used.

So in recap, the Washington Post says Trump claimed without evidence that Susan Rice may have committed a crime, then turns around and admits that Susan Rice may have committed a crime. It further admits that it appears that Susan Rice lied on public television when she claimed not to know anything about "the people around him [Trump] may have been caught up in surveillance of foreign individuals and that their identities may have been disclosed." At the very least she absolutely knew that people around Trump had been caught up in surveillance. And once General Flynn was fired it was obvious that "identities may have been disclosed."

How the Washington Post can run with that fake news headline, and how you can just blindly repost it, is beyond me.

[CPUd]

If you read past the headlines and read the actual report you will see that the headline the Washington Post used is full of B.S. and by extension so are you.

The Wall Street Journal reported that the names of two U.S. citizens who were part of Trump’s transition team were unmasked in intelligence reports. One person was Michael Flynn, who served briefly as Trump’s national security adviser until he was fired for misleading other administration officials about the nature of conversations with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak. Those conversations were monitored by the NSA, but the WSJ said that Rice did not instigate Flynn’s unmasking. Instead, the WSJ said Rice requested the unmasking of another (unnamed) transition official who was “part of multiple foreign conversations that weren’t related to Russia.”

Separately, disclosing classified information to news organizations could be criminal. Rice adamantly denied she did that, saying, “I leaked nothing, to nobody, and never have and never would.” But Trump claims to have been concerned about leaks.

Rice could have discussed the information she had learned from the intelligence reports with Obama administration colleagues, who in turn might have discussed it with reporters. But Marcy Wheeler, who writes on intelligence matters, estimates that 15 to 20 people would have access just to raw intercepts, suggesting the circle of people who knew this information could be quite wide even before people in the Obama administration might have gossiped about it.


Did Rice mislead on PBS?

A separate problem for Rice is an answer she gave during a March 22 interview with PBS’s “Newshour,” in which she appeared to deny knowing whether conversations involving Trump transition officials were incidentally collected by the NSA. The program aired without the full question posed by host Judy Woodruff, just Rice’s answer. After controversy arose, PBS posted the complete back-and-forth.

Readers can judge for themselves, but Rice tends to stick to her talking points. This is what got her in trouble — and earned her Pinocchios — when she famously insisted in 2012 that the Benghazi attacks were not planned in advance, even as the Libyan president appeared on the same Sunday programs to say, “This was preplanned, predetermined.”

Rice had been invited on the PBS program to discuss Trump’s unproven claim that Obama had tapped his phones at Trump Tower. But just before the show aired, House Intelligence Chairman Devin Nunes (R-Calif.) alleged that he had seen White House documents indicating the Obama administration intercepted Trump’s campaign communications while monitoring foreign officials.

Woodruff started the interview by raising Nunes’ unexpected disclosure that Trump “and the people around him may have been caught up in surveillance of foreign individuals and that their identities may have been disclosed.” Woodruff asked: “Do you know anything about this?”

“I know nothing about this. I was surprised to see reports from Chairman Nunes on that count today,” Rice answered. She then went on with her prepared remarks: “Let’s back up and recall where we have been,” she said, beginning a spiel about alleged wiretapping of Trump Tower.

After the transcript was released, Rice tweeted that she still does not know what reports Nunes was referring to.

The truthfulness of the answer is hard to gauge. If she was just deflecting a question because she didn’t know enough about Nunes’s claims, she did it in an awkward manner. Rice’s quick dismissal raised suspicions because she appeared to say she knew nothing about a practice that we now know she actively used.

So in recap, the Washington Post says Trump claimed without evidence that Susan Rice may have committed a crime, then turns around and admits that Susan Rice may have committed a crime. It further admits that it appears that Susan Rice lied on public television when she claimed not to know anything about "the people around him [Trump] may have been caught up in surveillance of foreign individuals and that their identities may have been disclosed." At the very least she absolutely knew that people around Trump had been caught up in surveillance. And once General Flynn was fired it was obvious that "identities may have been disclosed."

How the Washington Post can run with that fake news headline, and how you can just blindly repost it, is beyond me.

I can't speak for the Washington Post, but if you believe it's bullshit, you should call it out. That's sorta the point. If someone is looking to make a rational argument, I believe they should understand all the positions and where they're coming from, etc. Otherwise, you just end up with people screaming fake news and posting shark pics whenever an opposing point enters their echo chamber.

[jmdrake]

I can't speak for the Washington Post, but if you believe it's bull$#@!, you should call it out. That's sorta the point. If someone is looking to make a rational argument, I believe they should understand all the positions and where they're coming from, etc. Otherwise, you just end up with people screaming fake news and posting shark pics whenever an opposing point enters their echo chamber.

:rolleyes: CPUd you are your own echo chamber. If you post propaganda without actually adding any critical thought you aren't part of the solution, you are part of the problem. I attack Trump when he's wrong and get jumped on by the real echo chamber that doesn't want anything critical said about him. But I won't sit idly by while you do the same thing in reverse. Simply posting denials by Susan Rice and her defenders that she did anything wrong does nothing to help anyone "understand positions" any more than simply posting quotes of Trump as if that "proves" anything doesn't really add to the discussion either.

[Wooden Indian]

Seriously, CPUd... you rarely add any original thought/content to your posts and I'm often curious about your own positions.
It would do everyone a bit of good if you would include your commentary along with the video or text that you paste from other sources.

[CPUd]

:rolleyes: CPUd you are your own echo chamber. If you post propaganda without actually adding any critical thought you aren't part of the solution, you are part of the problem. I attack Trump when he's wrong and get jumped on by the real echo chamber that doesn't want anything critical said about him. But I won't sit idly by while you do the same thing in reverse. Simply posting denials by Susan Rice and her defenders that she did anything wrong does nothing to help anyone "understand positions" any more than simply posting quotes of Trump as if that "proves" anything doesn't really add to the discussion either.


Seriously, CPUd... you rarely add any original thought/content to your posts and I'm often curious about your own positions.
It would do everyone a bit of good if you would include your commentary along with the video or text that you paste from other sources.

I'll consider changing the way I do things, for the sake of avoiding future misunderstandings.

[timosman]

I'll consider changing the way I do things, for the sake of avoiding future misunderstandings.

https://ampalesxanes.files.wordpress.com/2015/01/100-me-gustas-gracias.jpg

[Ender]

:rolleyes: CPUd you are your own echo chamber. If you post propaganda without actually adding any critical thought you aren't part of the solution, you are part of the problem. I attack Trump when he's wrong and get jumped on by the real echo chamber that doesn't want anything critical said about him. But I won't sit idly by while you do the same thing in reverse. Simply posting denials by Susan Rice and her defenders that she did anything wrong does nothing to help anyone "understand positions" any more than simply posting quotes of Trump as if that "proves" anything doesn't really add to the discussion either.

Maybe CPUd should qualify his posts- but STILL-

I believe it is very important to read all sides of an issue to see where the truth might actually be. You can't see what is really happening w/o all sides of the picture.

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

C Pud is not here to discuss things. People who want to target en masse are not interested in what you have to say.

[Ender]

C Pud is not here to discuss things. People who want to target en passe are not interested in what you have to say.

I appreciated CPUd's posts immensely when the Trump supporters began to encompass the forum. His posts were to show the opposite POV on Trump and he did not comment much because of constant attacks- JMHPOV

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

I appreciated CPUd's posts immensely when the Trump supporters began to encompass the forum. His posts were to show the opposite POV on Trump and he did not comment much because of constant attacks- JMHPOV


He does not care that you appreciate it, and that is hardly why he did not comment. His posts were not to show an opposite point of view. That is not his goal. His goals are not your goals.

[Jan2017]

I'll consider changing the way I do things, for the sake of avoiding future misunderstandings.


Maybe CPUd should qualify his posts- but STILL-

I believe it is very important to read all sides of an issue to see where the truth might actually be. You can't see what is really happening w/o all sides of the picture.

So quick to the punch line from MSNBC and their apparently "go to" minority guy on the intel committee - Schif
I did have to laugh and was glad danno chimed in.

I guess I can see the value of seeing what the masses watching BSNBC are seeing - it maybe calms them for what is snowballing now,
now without their glass-ceiling breaker in the WH.

[Jamesiv1]

just one more high political drama that the political class devours, and everyday Americans couldn't give a flip about.

Meanwhile, debt goes up, people don't have jobs, and the country falls apart.

[Occam's Banana]

just one more high political drama that the political class devours, and everyday Americans couldn't give a flip about.

Meanwhile, debt goes up, people don't have jobs, and the country falls apart.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't you predict something like this?

[Ender]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't you predict something like this?

In 1984, I believe. ;)

[Ender]

He does not care that you appreciate it, and that is hardly why he did not comment. His posts were not to show an opposite point of view. That is not his goal. His goals are not your goals.

And, why should I care? I can read opposing views w/o going to the stinkin' MSM.

Fine with me. :cool:

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

And, why should I care?


You won't care when the site shuts down?

[silverhandorder]

Ender is either a useful idiot or a concern troll.

He always takes the let's hear every bodies side stance. If a communist would be advocating for concentrations camps here ender would be giving him the time of day.

Edit: on liberal issues.

[fcreature]

Ender is either a useful idiot or a concern troll.

I think you might be spending too much time on /r/The_Donald

[jmdrake]

I'll consider changing the way I do things, for the sake of avoiding future misunderstandings.

Thanks. I would +rep if you if could.


https://ampalesxanes.files.wordpress.com/2015/01/100-me-gustas-gracias.jpg

+rep


Maybe CPUd should qualify his posts- but STILL-

I believe it is very important to read all sides of an issue to see where the truth might actually be. You can't see what is really happening w/o all sides of the picture.

I agree. However sometimes CPUd's posts look like mirror images of Trumpskiites posts. "Someone said that Preibus sent out the Trump tweets attacking the Freedom Caucus and I'm going to accept that as plausible because I can't imagine herr leader doing anything wrong."


C Pud is not here to discuss things. People who want to target en masse are not interested in what you have to say.

I've seen Trumpskiites do that and the funny thing is that I have yet to see you complain about that. Why is that? Where were you when LibertyEagle attacked Justin Amash for daring to attack herr leader?



I appreciated CPUd's posts immensely when the Trump supporters began to encompass the forum. His posts were to show the opposite POV on Trump and he did not comment much because of constant attacks- JMHPOV

So did I. Trumpskiites jumped the shark first. Glad to see CPUd is open to reason.

[jmdrake]

Ender is either a useful idiot or a concern troll.

He always takes the let's hear every bodies side stance. If a communist would be advocating for concentrations camps here ender would be giving him the time of day.

Edit: on liberal issues.

Herr Leader's secretary of state just said they are going to adopt Obama's policy of regime change in Syria. Are you going to finally stand up against herr leader? I'm guessing no.

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

I've seen Trumpskiites do that and the funny thing is that I have yet to see you complain about that. Why is that? Where were you when LibertyEagle attacked Justin Amash for daring to attack herr leader?




Trumpskiites do what? Are you putting me on? Do you know the difference between a troll who is maliciously trying to shut down this site and somebody who is not?

[silverhandorder]

Herr Leader's secretary of state just said they are going to adopt Obama's policy of regime change in Syria. Are you going to finally stand up against herr leader? I'm guessing no.

I will say this. If we are in a hot war with Russia or China I will consider Trump to be a failure in foreign policy. If we are more involved in occupation wars then when he started I will consider him a failure.

I won't consider him a failure for wiping out ISIS. I wouldn't do that but he did promise this. So this goes outside the brakets for fail or success.

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

He [Ender] always takes the let's hear every bodies side stance. If a communist would be advocating for concentrations camps here ender would be giving him the time of day.

Edit: on liberal issues.


Yeah, I really don't get that either. On top of that, the infiltrators here are not interested in ivory tower discussion.

Some members act like they are here for their junior high debate finals, while the infiltrators laugh when yet another regular member says they are leaving the site because of all the trolling.

[Ender]

Ender is either a useful idiot or a concern troll.

He always takes the let's hear every bodies side stance. If a communist would be advocating for concentrations camps here ender would be giving him the time of day.

Edit: on liberal issues.

I am neither- and people always call others what they are.

And as far as concentration camps, wouldn't you be able to save yourself faster by knowing it was coming than to live in your little Trump Safe Space until they take you away?

[Ender]

Thanks. I would +rep if you if could.



+rep



I agree. However sometimes CPUd's posts look like mirror images of Trumpskiites posts. "Someone said that Preibus sent out the Trump tweets attacking the Freedom Caucus and I'm going to accept that as plausible because I can't imagine herr leader doing anything wrong."



I've seen Trumpskiites do that and the funny thing is that I have yet to see you complain about that. Why is that? Where were you when LibertyEagle attacked Justin Amash for daring to attack herr leader?




So did I. Trumpskiites jumped the shark first. Glad to see CPUd is open to reason.

And I'd +rep you if I could.

This post is exactly what I have been talking about. Trump supporters scream about others as they trash those that bring in news that is in opposition to their beloved leader.

Also, continually trolling the so-called trolls only increases the readership on the posts that are supposedly "trollish". If one really believed these guys were trolls, they would ignore them, instead of bringing the post continually back up to the top.

[CPUd]

And, why should I care? I can read opposing views w/o going to the stinkin' MSM.

Fine with me. :cool:

I actually do care, and it is the main reason I never gave up on RPFs. Even during the peak of Trumpmania when 25% RPFs members were Trump supporters, a large majority of the site including myself did not want to see them unilaterally banned. People need to understand where they are coming from, but they also need to see many of these positions are anti-liberty. Same applies to present day; people need to understand where an opponent is coming from before they can make a rigorous counterargument. That's not something you will see a lot of on other sites, because they have silo'd themselves off. As a result, they become vulnerable to manipulation. I warned dannno about this just a few weeks ago, but he refused to listen, and now he's running around calling things "fake news" whenever it is inconvenient to whatever theory he is trying to advance. That is not something I would like to see happen to RPFs as a whole.

[timosman]

I actually do care, and it is the main reason I never gave up on RPFs. Even during the peak of Trumpmania when 25% RPFs members were Trump supporters, a large majority of the site including myself did not want to see them unilaterally banned. People need to understand where they are coming from, but they also need to see many of these positions are anti-liberty. Same applies to present day; people need to understand where an opponent is coming from before they can make a rigorous counterargument. That's not something you will see a lot of on other sites, because they have silo'd themselves off. As a result, they become vulnerable to manipulation. I warned dannno about this just a few weeks ago, but he refused to listen, and now he's running around calling things "fake news" whenever it is inconvenient to whatever theory he is trying to advance. That is not something I would like to see happen to RPFs as a whole.

My best case scenario for you is multiple personalities disorder, something akin to Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dr._Jekyll_and_Mr._Hyde_(character)

[jmdrake]

Trumpskiites do what? Are you putting me on? Do you know the difference between a troll who is maliciously trying to shut down this site and somebody who is not?

:rolleyes: CPUd isn't trying to "shut the site down." He (or she) has a particular anti Trump bent. You have a particular pro Trump bent. This is not TrumpForums.com as much as you might wish it to be.

Edit: And if anyone is destroying this site and the freedom movement it is someone who would attack Justin Amash on behalf of Donald Trump.

[jmdrake]

I will say this. If we are in a hot war with Russia or China I will consider Trump to be a failure in foreign policy. If we are more involved in occupation wars then when he started I will consider him a failure.

I won't consider him a failure for wiping out ISIS. I wouldn't do that but he did promise this. So this goes outside the brakets for fail or success.

So overthrowing Assad now = wiping out ISIS? :rolleyes:

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

You have a particular pro Trump bent. This is not TrumpForums.com as much as you might wish it to be.




Really? Why don't you back that up. Do it now.

[jmdrake]

Really? Why don't you back that up. Do it now.

You're proving it right now in this thread. The only question is if you will admit the truth. I pointed out to you that Trumpskiites attacked Justin Amash and rather than acknowledge that and say it's wrong all you want to do is hate on CPUd. So you have backed it up for me.

[jmdrake]

I actually do care, and it is the main reason I never gave up on RPFs. Even during the peak of Trumpmania when 25% RPFs members were Trump supporters, a large majority of the site including myself did not want to see them unilaterally banned. People need to understand where they are coming from, but they also need to see many of these positions are anti-liberty. Same applies to present day; people need to understand where an opponent is coming from before they can make a rigorous counterargument. That's not something you will see a lot of on other sites, because they have silo'd themselves off. As a result, they become vulnerable to manipulation. I warned dannno about this just a few weeks ago, but he refused to listen, and now he's running around calling things "fake news" whenever it is inconvenient to whatever theory he is trying to advance. That is not something I would like to see happen to RPFs as a whole.

Sorry now I neg repped you earlier because this is another post that deserves a +rep.

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

You're proving it right now in this thread. The only question is if you will admit the truth.

The only question is for you to back up your statement of "You have a particular pro Trump bent." Put up. Do it now.

[jmdrake]

The only question is for you to back up your statement of "You have a particular pro Trump bent." Put up. Do it now.

That's what I backed up. Your record speaks for itself. You attack those who criticize Trump and given Trump supporters a free pass no matter what they say. When I compare Trumpskiites to people like CPUd, you make false statements and say that people like CPUd are trying to "shut down the site." Yes, I'm calling you out for that. Back up your statement that CPUd is trying to "shut down the site." Do it now.

[Wooden Indian]

I agree with representing all sides of the argument and those that only want their pro-Trump message to be heard are pretty unscrupulous people and a disgrace to Liberty. I don't feel they are the majority here though... however I have seen 2 post in this very thread coincidentally.

Same is true when referring to the other side of the coin, Trump has done a couple of good things (I stress a couple, but I digress).

All that said, thank you CPUd for considering a change to how you convey the other side of the argument. I think you'll find you get more traction and the forums will be better off for it.

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

That's what I backed up. Your record speaks for itself.


What did you back up? You just gave your opinion without any facts. Put up with quotes. Do it now.

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

You have a particular pro Trump bent.


For the record, I was against Donny long before many. Here is what I have said:



Oct 21, 2016:

"Once that ass clown [Don Trump] won the GOP nomination..."

"I don't like either one at all, [Donny or Hillary]..."

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...44#post6337844


***



March 20, 2016:

"Don is a big government demagogue and opportunist who attempts to use government for his own selfish gain. Most people love demagoguery."

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...74#post6173574



***

March 12 2016:

"Trump is the one who used the threat of violence to remove people from their own properties for his own selfish gain. What goes around--comes around, you filthy prick."

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...79#post6164379



***

March 3 2016

"Yeah, really. This should be no surprise to anyone, yet this government parasite has simply tapped into dumb American brains. Trump is an even big copsucker than most; his statement on lice was pretty incredible, even for a bootlicker."

"The guy used government to selfishly take others' lands. He cares about his dick and himself. The guy is as big government as it gets."

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...64#post6152464














March 24, 2016:

I even made a thread here, saying that the now president should be belittled by calling him "Don."
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...-quot-Don-quot



***


September 9, 2016:


And here is one where someone and I debated against the Don supporter, Restoration of Liberty, in the same 24 hour period. I said to Restoration of Liberty:


"Sure, Don and Hilary are about the biggest protectionists around."

"You're another Don supporter. Another supporter of big government."

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...65#post6308365

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

Being against Donny Trump does not necessarily make one pro-liberty. Democratic Underground members are all practically against Donny, but they're hardly liberty supporters.

10 DU people could join here and post anti-Don threads and 20 people would instantly befriend them.

[jmdrake]

What did you back up? You just gave your opinion without any facts. Put up with quotes. Do it now.

The thread speaks for itself. You lied and said CPUd was trying to shut down the forum. Back up that lie with facts or shut up.

[jmdrake]

For the record, I was against Donny long before many. Here is what I have said:



Oct 21, 2016:

"Once that ass clown [Don Trump] won the GOP nomination..."

"I don't like either one at all, [Donny or Hillary]..."

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...44#post6337844


***



March 20, 2016:

"Don is a big government demagogue and opportunist who attempts to use government for his own selfish gain. Most people love demagoguery."

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...74#post6173574



***

March 12 2016:

"Trump is the one who used the threat of violence to remove people from their own properties for his own selfish gain. What goes around--comes around, you filthy prick."

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...79#post6164379



***

March 3 2016

"Yeah, really. This should be no surprise to anyone, yet this government parasite has simply tapped into dumb American brains. Trump is an even big copsucker than most; his statement on lice was pretty incredible, even for a bootlicker."

"The guy used government to selfishly take others' lands. He cares about his dick and himself. The guy is as big government as it gets."

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...64#post6152464














March 24, 2016:

I even made a thread here, saying that the now president should be belittled by calling him "Don."
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...-quot-Don-quot



***


September 9, 2016:


And here is one where someone and I debated against the Don supporter, Restoration of Liberty, in the same 24 hour period. I said to Restoration of Liberty:


"Sure, Don and Hilary are about the biggest protectionists around."

"You're another Don supporter. Another supporter of big government."

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...65#post6308365

Interesting. Not a single quote from 2017. You're proving my point in spades.

[jmdrake]

Being against Donny Trump does not necessarily make one pro-liberty.

I never made that claim. But you lied and claimed CPUd was trying to shut down the forum. Prove that or shut up.

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

You have a particular pro Trump bent.


I am still waiting for you to back this up. Put up. Do it now.

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

You're proving my point in spades.

That's not how it works. You have to prove your own claim. You said:



You have a particular pro Trump bent.


Back it up. Put up. Do it now.

[jmdrake]

That's not how it works. You have to prove your own claim. You said:

And you proved my point. You don't have a single anti Trump quote from 2017. If you lack the intelligence to understand how that proves my point that's not my fault. Now prove your cause about CPUd.

[jmdrake]

I am still waiting for you to back this up. Put up. Do it now.

I already did. You apparently lack intelligence to understand. Not my fault. Now prove that CPUd is trying to shut down the forum or shut the fvck up.

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

And you proved my point. You don't have a single anti Trump quote from 2017.


What point? What does that prove?

I have not told anyone this year that I hate soft drinks. Does that prove I like soft drinks?

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

If you lack the intelligence to understand how that proves my point that's not my fault.


Your understanding of proof is pointing to someone's inaction, and you say I lack intelligence?!

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

Any, and all, anti-Trump members on this site = pro liberty Ron Paul forum members!

Yay!!!!!!!!!!




http://img-cache.cdn.gaiaonline.com/c7a455ef826e0738da7b4d105bbcf75b/http://i716.photobucket.com/albums/ww162/YOUHAVEHERPES/WhoYouCallinPinhead.jpg

[jmdrake]

Your understanding of proof is pointing to someone's inaction, and you say I lack intelligence?!

1) Where is your proof that CPUd is trying to end the forum liar?

2) You used quotes for your proof that you are not pro Trump but none of your proof is from 2017.

3) I wasn't just talking about your inaction. I was also talking about your action like attacking, and lying about, people like CPUd.

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

2) You used quotes for your proof that you are not pro Trump but none of your proof is from 2017.




You made the claim when you said I have a "particular pro Trump bent." You're the one who has to provide the proof.

[jmdrake]

You made the claim when you said I have a "particular pro Trump bent." You're the one who has to provide the proof.

You made the initial claim that CPUd was trying to end the forum. That claim that you made, without proof, is proof that you have a particular pro Trump bent. Now back up your initial claim liar.

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

That claim that you made, without proof, is proof that you have a particular pro Trump bent.


How so?

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

I was also talking about your...lying...



Here's your logic:

Mary dislikes Jessica.
Jessica dislikes Stacy.
Therefore Mary likes Stacy.



Applied here:

NorthCarolinaLiberty opposes CPUd.
CPUd opposes Trump.
Therefore, Northcarolinaliberty supports Trump.

[jmdrake]

How so?

Prove your claim. How is CPUd trying to shut down the forum?

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

Prove your claim. How is CPUd trying to shut down the forum?



The answer to a question is not a question.



Here's your logic:

Mary dislikes Jessica.
Jessica dislikes Stacy.
Therefore Mary likes Stacy.



Applied here:

NorthCarolinaLiberty opposes CPUd.
CPUd opposes Trump.
Therefore, Northcarolinaliberty supports Trump.

[jmdrake]

The answer to a question is not a question.

You aren't looking of answers. You are looking for self justification for your illogical bias. And Jesus often answered questions with a question. Your bias is shown by your illogical assertions against CPUd. CPUd has been consistently anti Trump. I have yet to see you attack someone for being pro Trump. That's because you have a pro Trump bias. If you don't understand, then yes you are indeed stupid.

[jmdrake]

Applied here:

NorthCarolinaLiberty opposes CPUd.
CPUd opposes Trump.
Therefore, Northcarolinaliberty supports Trump.

Bullshyt.


NorthCarolinaLiberty only attacks CPUd for being pro Trump.
NorthCarolinaLiberty never gives a reason for his attacks against CPUd and makes baseless accusations.
NorthCarolinaLiberty never attacks anyone for being pro Trump.
NorthCarolinaLiberty has not attacked Trump at all in 2017 despite Trump doing plenty of things worthy of attack.
NorthCarolinaLiberty dishonestly demands "proof" for what has already been shown while not giving proof for his baseless accusation that CPUd is trying to shut down the forum.
NorthCarolinaLiberty dishonestly demands "proof" for what has already been shown while not giving proof for his baseless accusation that CPUd is trying to shut down the forum.
NorthCarolinaLiberty dishonestly demands "proof" for what has already been shown while not giving proof for his baseless accusation that CPUd is trying to shut down the forum.
NorthCarolinaLiberty dishonestly demands "proof" for what has already been shown while not giving proof for his baseless accusation that CPUd is trying to shut down the forum.
NorthCarolinaLiberty dishonestly demands "proof" for what has already been shown while not giving proof for his baseless accusation that CPUd is trying to shut down the forum.
NorthCarolinaLiberty dishonestly demands "proof" for what has already been shown while not giving proof for his baseless accusation that CPUd is trying to shut down the forum.
NorthCarolinaLiberty dishonestly demands "proof" for what has already been shown while not giving proof for his baseless accusation that CPUd is trying to shut down the forum.
NorthCarolinaLiberty dishonestly demands "proof" for what has already been shown while not giving proof for his baseless accusation that CPUd is trying to shut down the forum.
NorthCarolinaLiberty dishonestly demands "proof" for what has already been shown while not giving proof for his baseless accusation that CPUd is trying to shut down the forum.
NorthCarolinaLiberty dishonestly demands "proof" for what has already been shown while not giving proof for his baseless accusation that CPUd is trying to shut down the forum.
NorthCarolinaLiberty dishonestly demands "proof" for what has already been shown while not giving proof for his baseless accusation that CPUd is trying to shut down the forum.
NorthCarolinaLiberty dishonestly demands "proof" for what has already been shown while not giving proof for his baseless accusation that CPUd is trying to shut down the forum.
NorthCarolinaLiberty dishonestly demands "proof" for what has already been shown while not giving proof for his baseless accusation that CPUd is trying to shut down the forum.
NorthCarolinaLiberty dishonestly demands "proof" for what has already been shown while not giving proof for his baseless accusation that CPUd is trying to shut down the forum.
NorthCarolinaLiberty dishonestly demands "proof" for what has already been shown while not giving proof for his baseless accusation that CPUd is trying to shut down the forum.
NorthCarolinaLiberty dishonestly demands "proof" for what has already been shown while not giving proof for his baseless accusation that CPUd is trying to shut down the forum.
NorthCarolinaLiberty dishonestly demands "proof" for what has already been shown while not giving proof for his baseless accusation that CPUd is trying to shut down the forum.

[jmdrake]

NorthCarolinaLiberty dishonestly demands "proof" for what has already been shown while not giving proof for his baseless accusation that CPUd is trying to shut down the forum.
NorthCarolinaLiberty dishonestly demands "proof" for what has already been shown while not giving proof for his baseless accusation that CPUd is trying to shut down the forum.
NorthCarolinaLiberty dishonestly demands "proof" for what has already been shown while not giving proof for his baseless accusation that CPUd is trying to shut down the forum.
NorthCarolinaLiberty dishonestly demands "proof" for what has already been shown while not giving proof for his baseless accusation that CPUd is trying to shut down the forum.
NorthCarolinaLiberty dishonestly demands "proof" for what has already been shown while not giving proof for his baseless accusation that CPUd is trying to shut down the forum.
NorthCarolinaLiberty dishonestly demands "proof" for what has already been shown while not giving proof for his baseless accusation that CPUd is trying to shut down the forum.
NorthCarolinaLiberty dishonestly demands "proof" for what has already been shown while not giving proof for his baseless accusation that CPUd is trying to shut down the forum.
NorthCarolinaLiberty dishonestly demands "proof" for what has already been shown while not giving proof for his baseless accusation that CPUd is trying to shut down the forum.
NorthCarolinaLiberty dishonestly demands "proof" for what has already been shown while not giving proof for his baseless accusation that CPUd is trying to shut down the forum.
NorthCarolinaLiberty dishonestly demands "proof" for what has already been shown while not giving proof for his baseless accusation that CPUd is trying to shut down the forum.
NorthCarolinaLiberty dishonestly demands "proof" for what has already been shown while not giving proof for his baseless accusation that CPUd is trying to shut down the forum.
NorthCarolinaLiberty dishonestly demands "proof" for what has already been shown while not giving proof for his baseless accusation that CPUd is trying to shut down the forum.
NorthCarolinaLiberty dishonestly demands "proof" for what has already been shown while not giving proof for his baseless accusation that CPUd is trying to shut down the forum.
NorthCarolinaLiberty dishonestly demands "proof" for what has already been shown while not giving proof for his baseless accusation that CPUd is trying to shut down the forum.
NorthCarolinaLiberty dishonestly demands "proof" for what has already been shown while not giving proof for his baseless accusation that CPUd is trying to shut down the forum.
NorthCarolinaLiberty dishonestly demands "proof" for what has already been shown while not giving proof for his baseless accusation that CPUd is trying to shut down the forum.
NorthCarolinaLiberty dishonestly demands "proof" for what has already been shown while not giving proof for his baseless accusation that CPUd is trying to shut down the forum.
NorthCarolinaLiberty dishonestly demands "proof" for what has already been shown while not giving proof for his baseless accusation that CPUd is trying to shut down the forum.
NorthCarolinaLiberty dishonestly demands "proof" for what has already been shown while not giving proof for his baseless accusation that CPUd is trying to shut down the forum.
NorthCarolinaLiberty dishonestly demands "proof" for what has already been shown while not giving proof for his baseless accusation that CPUd is trying to shut down the forum.
NorthCarolinaLiberty dishonestly demands "proof" for what has already been shown while not giving proof for his baseless accusation that CPUd is trying to shut down the forum.
NorthCarolinaLiberty dishonestly demands "proof" for what has already been shown while not giving proof for his baseless accusation that CPUd is trying to shut down the forum.
NorthCarolinaLiberty dishonestly demands "proof" for what has already been shown while not giving proof for his baseless accusation that CPUd is trying to shut down the forum.
NorthCarolinaLiberty dishonestly demands "proof" for what has already been shown while not giving proof for his baseless accusation that CPUd is trying to shut down the forum.
NorthCarolinaLiberty dishonestly demands "proof" for what has already been shown while not giving proof for his baseless accusation that CPUd is trying to shut down the forum.
NorthCarolinaLiberty dishonestly demands "proof" for what has already been shown while not giving proof for his baseless accusation that CPUd is trying to shut down the forum.
NorthCarolinaLiberty dishonestly demands "proof" for what has already been shown while not giving proof for his baseless accusation that CPUd is trying to shut down the forum.
NorthCarolinaLiberty dishonestly demands "proof" for what has already been shown while not giving proof for his baseless accusation that CPUd is trying to shut down the forum.
NorthCarolinaLiberty dishonestly demands "proof" for what has already been shown while not giving proof for his baseless accusation that CPUd is trying to shut down the forum.

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

I have yet to see you attack someone for being pro Trump. That's because you have a pro Trump bias.


Here's your logic:



JMDrake has never heard NorthCarolinaLiberty say that he hates soft drinks. Therefore, NorthCarolinaliberty loves soft drinks.

[jmdrake]

Trumpskiites do what? Are you putting me on? Do you know the difference between a troll who is maliciously trying to shut down this site and somebody who is not?

For the record ^This is where the byllshyt started. Nothing that the Trumpskiites to is worthy of criticism and everything CPUd is a malicious attempt to try to shut down the forum. If you can't see how that is pro Trump bias then you are an idiot.

[jmdrake]

Here's your logic:



JMDrake has never heard NorthCarolinaLiberty say that he hates soft drinks. Therefore, NorthCarolinaliberty loves soft drinks.


Trumpskiites do what? Are you putting me on? Do you know the difference between a troll who is maliciously trying to shut down this site and somebody who is not?

For the record ^This is where the byllshyt started. Nothing that the Trumpskiites to is worthy of criticism and everything CPUd is a malicious attempt to try to shut down the forum. If you can't see how that is pro Trump bias then you are an idiot.

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

The answer to a question is not a question.


...Jesus often answered questions with a question.

.


Oh, are you Jesus now? Was he for or against Donny Trump? :confused:

[jmdrake]

Oh, are you Jesus now? Was he for or against Donny Trump? :confused:


Trumpskiites do what? Are you putting me on? Do you know the difference between a troll who is maliciously trying to shut down this site and somebody who is not?

For the record ^This is where the byllshyt started. Nothing that the Trumpskiites to is worthy of criticism and everything CPUd is a malicious attempt to try to shut down the forum. If you can't see how that is pro Trump bias then you are an idiot.

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

For the record ^This is where the byllshyt started.


It started long before that. And for the record, I don't criticize people here for either being pro and anti Don. My criticisms are of a different nature, of which I don't expect you to get.

[jmdrake]

It started long before that. And for the record, I don't criticize people here for either being pro and anti Don. My criticisms are of a different nature, of which I don't expect you to get.

I'm talking about in this thread. Do you know what the word bias means? Bias towards one thing or the other doesn't mean that you never criticize the other. There are people with a pro Obama bias, for example, that criticize Obama. But the absolute proof of your pro Trump bias is that when I compared what CPUd does to Trumpskiites, you took offense and put CPUd into some ridiculous category of people who are "trying to shut down the forum." CPUd is not trying to do any such thing and you have not put forward any evidence to prove that. In this thread I criticized CPUd before you did and for the reason that CPUd was doing the same thing that Trumpskiites do. Whenever someone criticizes Trump a Trumpkiites will use Trump's blanket denial as "proof" that the criticism is unwarranted. Or worse they make up excuses that even Trump hasn't said like "Rinse Prebutt took over Trump's twitter." CPUd posted a blanket denial of Susan Rice that she did anything wrong. It was the same. Note, for the record, not all Trump supporters are Trumpskiites. And thankfully after yesterday some hardcore Trumpskiites quit being Trumpskiites. They might still be Trump supporters but it's no longer the mind numbing, brain dead zombie "My guy can do no wrong and you'd better not criticize him for any reason" type of support.

[CPUd]

For the record, I'm not trying to shut down the forums.

[Occam's Banana]

For the record, I'm not trying to shut down the forums.

But isn't that just the sort of thing you would say if you were trying to shut down the forums? Hmmmmm ...

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

Do you know what the word bias means? ...

But the absolute proof of your pro Trump bias...


You use terms like "absolute proof" and you're asking me if I know the meaning of words?! That's a good one.

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

For the record, I'm not trying to shut down the forums.


I have asked you various questions over the months on why you do some of the things you do. You never answer, but I will try one more time.

One aspect is your seemingly general mockery of this site. You used to have an avatar which was a takeoff on the Snowden avatar. The Snowden avatar is still used by several people here. It's an abstract picture of Snowden. The color is blue and red. It has the word "hero" under Snowden's picture.

Your avatar substituted a house cat for Snowden. The word under the house cat reads "feed." My question is (first) whether you custom made that (just wondering since you seem to be good with computers). The second question is why you chose that avatar. The third is whether or not you support Snowden.

I will just start with that one because listing my other questions will probably be a waste of time since I doubt you will answer. I'm sure you'll just move on to the next big thread.

[jmdrake]

You use terms like "absolute proof" and you're asking me if I know the meaning of words?! That's a good one.

It's funny that you snip out the evidence that proves my case. Cowardice kicking in?

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

It's funny that you snip out the evidence that proves my case.


Well, maybe you better hire a detective to find it, counsel. The all powerful me censored your information and there is no way anyone can possibly see it! They will never know the truth because I snipped it out! Never to be seen again!

[enhanced_deficit]

Situation is getting very polarized going by this controversial cartoon.

https://cached-assets.patriotpost.us/images/2017-04-04-1f06c092_large.jpeg