***Official Political Discussion Thread***

[dwalk31]

Yet, you have failed to provide any reason for anyone to believe this.

The reason to believe it is that he signed the First Step Act and has openly supported a second step act focused on additional prison reform.

If that doesn't meet the "any reason" standard, then we can just agree to disagree on that.

 

[aepps20]

WHAT WOULD DELKINS DO FOR HIS STOCKX SCAM?

1. Cape for Pedos? Yup
2. Support a racist? You betcha
3. Show no moral fiber at all? LET'S GET IT.

 

[RustyShackleford]

The reason to believe it is that he signed the First Step Act and has openly supported a second step act focused on additional prison reform.

If that doesn't meet the "any reason" standard, then we can just agree to disagree on that.

He disagree with the Mueller investigation and he had no problem voicing his displeasure.

"Agree to disagree" with you means you have reached the point where you realize you can't deflect effectively, so you need to move on as to not make yourself look like a bigger *** than you already have.

 

[IATT]

Fair enough.

go ask your supposedly black wife how she feels about you supporting these people

 

[aepps20]

go ask your supposedly black wife how she feels about you supporting these people

Delk

 

[dreamer23]

 

[IATT]

 

[dwalk31]

He disagree with the Mueller investigation and he had no problem voicing his displeasure.

"Agree to disagree" with you means you have reached the point where you realize you can't deflect effectively, so you need to move on as to not make yourself look like a bigger *** than you already have.

Not at all.

You are saying there has been no reason provided that he asked the DOJ to stop. I provided the reason to believe that he has said stop (the fact that he signed the legislation and openly supported further legislation on the subject).

You have mentioned the Mueller investigation to show that if he wanted to say stop publicly he would.

Both are fair.

At the end of the day, we don't know if he has asked the DOJ to stop or not.

But we do know the DOJ is independent, and the Mueller investigation didn't end because of his displeasure with it, neither have the other investigations by the DOJ into Trump.

 

[IATT]

 

[RustyShackleford]

Not at all.

You are saying there has been no reason provided that he asked the DOJ to stop. I provided the reason to believe that he has said stop (the fact that he signed the legislation and openly supported further legislation on the subject).

You have mentioned the Mueller investigation to show that if he wanted to say stop publicly he would.

Both are fair.

At the end of the day, we don't know if he has asked the DOJ to stop or not.

But we do know the DOJ is independent, and the Mueller investigation didn't end at because of his displeasure with it, neither have the other investigations by the DOJ into Trump.

You are bull****ting me.

This is the exact same logic you used to defend you asinine welfare reduction plan.

Basically you can't defend your position, you can't form a cogent argument, so you want me to agree that somehow you might be right. As a way to act like the evidence is balance on both sides. When it is not.

This started because you wanted Trump to get credit for directing the DOJ to do something. I caught your hypocrisy, and you couldn't backpedal skillfully enough to get out of it.

Miss me with this Delk.

Be more intellectually honest. You whine about your treatment in here, yet you do **** like this which is clearly arguing in bad faith. Which you know will be antagonistic

 

[dwalk31]

You are bull****ting me.

This is the exact same logic you used to defend you asinine welfare reduction plan.

Basically you can't defend your position, you can't form a cogent argument, so you want me to agree that somehow you might be right. As a way to act like the evidence is balance on both sides. When it is not.

This started because you wanted Trump to get credit for directing the DOJ to do something. I caught your hypocrisy, and you couldn't backpedal skillfully enough to get out of it.

Miss me with this Delk.

Be more intellectually honest. You whine about your treatment in here, yet you do **** like this which is clearly arguing in bad faith. Which you know will be antagonistic

You disagreeing with my argument is not me failing to defend my argument.

Why would trump sign a piece of legislation that he wanted undermined?

For some reason you think that makes sense.

Talk about asinine

 

[IATT]

Watch Melania Trump Defend the Racist Birther Movement Against Barack Obama

The clip surfaced after Women's March protesters brandished "Free Melania" signs.

www.teenvogue.com

 

[IATT]

Talk about asinine

 

[Cashflow]

Featured at tonight’s rnc rally dwalk31

 

[RIP sleazyy]

I am sure that this guy is all for criminal justice reform and supporting minority communities

 

[RustyShackleford]

You disagreeing with my argument is not me failing to defend my argument.

Why would trump sign a piece of legislation that he wanted undermined?

For some reason you think that makes sense.

Talk about asinine

Maybe as a PR win.

Because Kushner convinced him he could say "look what I have done for black people". All while the news media is distracted from all the other regressive measures he supports.

You argument is always based on the assumption Trump is a good faith actor. Even with reports from multiple outlets that he said he regretted signing the bill, even has he he has spewed racist tough on crime rhetoric all through the summer, even as he gassed peaceful protestors, even as he sent police to snatch people off the streets of Portland, even as he is one of the most dishonest politician in Washington based on fact checkers. You demand people to believe that he must always get the benefit of the doubt, and be seen as a good faith actor. Delk, no one is required to be has intellectually dishonest as you; no one is required to be a pathetic boot licker like you.

Your argument is that he might of directed them to stop undermining it. Yet you have no evidence of that.Plus they seemingly are continuing to undermine it. And Trump has said nothing in the media voicing his displeasure, or have there been leaks of him voicing his displeasure. So of course you failed to defend your argument. You could not provide evidence, then you said "welp, even though I can't provide it. Even though I can't find any evidence of it, it might of happen". Want you claim to be evidence of Trump taking issue with the DOJ continuing to undermine the First Step Act over the 18 months after it was signed, was that Trump signed the the First Step ACt over 18 months ago.

It is ******* ridiculous argument to make, and it shows you have failed to defend you argument.

The only person making himself look like an *** is you. You must be freebasing that cocoa butter, instead of applying to your legs.

 

[IATT]

 

[IATT]

dwalk31 as I’m not a black southern American, I according to you can’t speak of my experiences with the racist sides of America

butttttttttttttt

 

[deuce king]

Young Steve Kornacki on the boards!!

 

[IATT]

 

[Sharpshoeter13]

Watch Melania Trump Defend the Racist Birther Movement Against Barack Obama

The clip surfaced after Women's March protesters brandished "Free Melania" signs.

www.teenvogue.com

... and plagiarized

 

[IATT]

dwalk31

 

[IATT]

dwalk31

 

[dwalk31]

Maybe as a PR win.

Because Kushner convinced him he could say "look what I have done for black people". All while the news media is distracted from all the other regressive measures he supports.

You argument is always based on the assumption Trump is a good faith actor. Even with reports from multiple outlets that he said he regretted signing the bill, even has he he has spewed racist tough on crime rhetoric all through the summer, even as he gassed peaceful protestors, even as he sent police to snatch people off the streets of Portland, even as he is one of the most dishonest politician in Washington based on fact checkers. You demand people to believe that he must always get the benefit of the doubt, and be seen as a good faith actor. Delk, no one is required to be as sorry of a pathetic boot licker as you. No one is required to be has intecually dishonest as you.

Your argument is that he might of directed them to stop undermining it. Yet you have no evidence of that.Plus they seemingly are continuing to undermine it. And Trump has said nothing in the media voicing his displeasure, or have there been leaks of his displeasure. So of course you failed to defend your argument. You could not provide evidence, then you said "welp, even though I can't provide it. Even though I can't find any evidence of it, it might of happen". Want you claim to be evidence against Trump taking issue with the DOJ continuing to undermine the First Step Act over the 18 months after it was signed, is that Trump signed the the First Step ACt over 18 months ago.

It is ****ing ridiculous argument to make, and it shows you have failed to defend you argument.

The only person making himself look like an *** is you. You must be freebasing that cocoa butter, instead of applying to your legs.

You realize you are asking for evidence that he did something while you have provided no evidence that he didn't? Other than speculation... same as me.

We both mentioned logical reasons for our argument. Like you stated, my argument requires giving Trump the benefit of the doubt. Just because you don't want to give him that doesn't mean that the reasoning isn't valid.

PR is a logical reason to sign the act. So wouldn't it also be good PR to be against it being undermined?

Talk about ridiculous logic.

 

[RIP sleazyy]

PR is a logical reason to sign the act. So wouldn't it also be good PR to be against it being undermined?