Durham

[Jay Falcon]

What happens when the indictments start returning plea deals, flipping informants and producing convictions? How many more folks will "commit suicide" in unmonitored cells?

What will the legacy media make public to the dwindling number of family members who are still watching little Joey on the TV? (He's so handsome and smart!)

After EVERY FACT SHOWS THE OFTEN REPEATED LIES TO BE LIES, will the lies still be embraced by the loyal? Will they continue to beat the Dead Horse mistaking it for their high horse?

How long will the deceived sheep follow along bitterly clinging to their convictions when all of their priests have been implicated in the crime?

Why do your posts sound so deranged? Like, completely devoid of common sense and reality.

 

[Schism]

What happens when the indictments start returning plea deals, flipping informants and producing convictions? How many more folks will "commit suicide" in unmonitored cells?

What will the legacy media make public to the dwindling number of family members who are still watching little Joey on the TV? (He's so handsome and smart!)

After EVERY FACT SHOWS THE OFTEN REPEATED LIES TO BE LIES, will the lies still be embraced by the loyal? Will they continue to beat the Dead Horse mistaking it for their high horse?

How long will the deceived sheep follow along bitterly clinging to their convictions when all of their priests have been implicated in the crime?

They'll run towards the next lie or manufactured crisis and make so much noise that it drowns out questions from the last lie.

They're in so deep, they're willing to start WW3 to cover up their crimes. And if Americans try to protest? Look what Canada just did to their own citizens. That's what's coming. Liberals can't wait.

 

[bluesmoke]

^^ Ironic representation of the problem you are attempting to perpetuate.

Marcus Aurelius never said/wrote the above.

PolitiFact - No, Marcus Aurelius didn’t say this about opinions and facts

On Sept. 23, an Instagram account called @jimcarreyhere posted an illustration of a man with this quote attributed to th

www.politifact.com

Your pseudo intellectual babbling aside, perspectives and opinions have not replaced facts. Not yet, at least, and I very sincerely hope that they never do.

While there’s no argument that they don’t largely influence actions, perspectives and opinions should be based on factual foundations, not flat out lies, which has become a shameful norm among many Americans.

Thanks for the Marcus correction. I'm sure there's many more.

Pick out and quote, exactly, what I said and refute it.

Thx.

 

[bluesmoke]

Reality is not that mysterious.

Their "reality" is mostly fiction.

Alt-reality is not mysterious, either. Strange, yes. But it is not unknown or necessarily from an unknown source.

 

[RaleBulgarian]

Thanks for the Marcus correction.

It wasn’t a correction as much as it was an ironic example of representation of the problem you are attempting to perpetuate.

I'm sure there's many more.

No doubt, but not at all relevant to the point.

Pick out and quote, exactly, what I said and refute it.

Refuting nonsensical, pseudo-intellectual babbling opinion is a pointless waste of time.

How about you provide factual/verifiable support for just one of your ridiculous claims?

That's how Hillary lost

Thx.

De nada.

 

[noonereal]

LOL - "be American". Republicans? That's so adorable. That train left the station decades ago.

Sadly, it started to pull away from the station in 2000. Now it is a run away train on a collision course with Democracy.

 

[noonereal]

No. WTF is your point. You made the claim "...it is up to justice to defend democracy at present." (Assumedly that it is up to no others, or please clarify). The burden of providing proof is on whom made the claim. That's you. That's debate. Otherwise, your claim is unfounded and dismissed for lack of evidence with no need for further debate.

What a word salad. God bless you.

 

[bluesmoke]

Your post implied that each person has their own reality, and that all "realities" are equally factual and genuine. That, of course, is bullshit and reminiscent of Kellyanne Conway's alternative facts statement. I find such declarations abhorrent and an insult to my intelligence.

To make matters worse, your successive clarifications regarding that post were anything but clear.

I said: “You have your reality, they have theirs. Who's to say which is real?”

The point of my statement is there are a lot of “Who’s” out there that are saying what is their reality and doing a much better job of it than the Dems and those who think facts make reality and thus win the argument and decide what will and should be. Though I said in reply to another poster that there was an element of SNARK in my post, the question is serious. You won’t or can’t answer the question. The Trumpster/Rep/cons of alt reality are deciding what is real. When they vote in a Rep prez and Congress that fill lifetime judicial appointments and, most consequentially, the SC with cons, who decide what is real, that is reality. When the Rep/cons of alt reality control states and thus the electoral process, purposely making the voting process purposely more difficult for minorities that tend to vote Dem and rewriting the Congressional districts to disfavor those minorities, that’s real. That the alt reality of democracy is better as fascism, that American democracy is under assault and being replaced by an alt reality, that is real. But getting the fact that the reality of all politics is perception through to you, and is succeeding in all the above, has me wandering all over the map of explanation, and you still don’t understand, is no wonder. The Dems that are supposed to be protecting our democracy and live up to the name of their party don’t understand either. They just ignore the other side, as if their alt reality selves will go away, and thus will never understand the other side. A fatal mistake in dealing with the opposition/enemy/competition.

Your intelligence should be insulted because you can’t wrap your head around the facts and reality of the above. You can’t refute what I’ve said that you say is unclear to you and won’t refute because you didn’t answer my question what, exactly, can you refute? In debate, quote my words and what is incorrect. You aren’t debating forthrightly.

BTW, it’s not just American democracy that’s under threat by Trumpster/Rep/con Americans in America, it’s democracy in other so far sovereign countries where various countries that should be responsive haven’t been any more responsive than the Dems have been to the Trumpster/Rep/con threat to American democracy in America.

 

[code1211]

Why do your posts sound so deranged? Like, completely devoid of common sense and reality.

I assume your preconceived beliefs deny you the ability to understand them.

 

[bluesmoke]

It wasn’t a correction as much as it was an ironic example of representation of the problem you are attempting to perpetuate.

No doubt, but not at all relevant to the point.

Refuting nonsensical, pseudo-intellectual babbling opinion is a pointless waste of time.

How about you provide factual/verifiable support for just one of your ridiculous claims?



De nada.

You can't do one simple thing and pick out one single quote and use facts to refute what I said. Instead, you make an excuse, that you can't prove either, and runaway from what is the debate process.

Heiress apparent Hillary lost because she didn't understand how real the alt reality voters were to them and did not fight for the battleground states (That's why they call them battleground states. You have to fight for them), where Trump visited more often than Hillary. Hillary not stepping a foot into WI. Then there's the fact of Hillary having no connecting message, no vision, no cause while Trump's alt reality made a connection. Hillary won the pop vote by 3M. However, take away the 4M she won by in CA and Trump won the pop vote in the remaining 49 states and DC, put together, by 1M. There was no factual support of the alt reality "Wall", but it made a connection, and the southern border still makes a connection. What, specifically, did Hillary say or do that connected with the public?

 

[code1211]

They'll run towards the next lie or manufactured crisis and make so much noise that it drowns out questions from the last lie.

They're in so deep, they're willing to start WW3 to cover up their crimes. And if Americans try to protest? Look what Canada just did to their own citizens. That's what's coming. Liberals can't wait.

The strong, government sponsored drive to eliminate Bill of Rights freedoms should concern everyone.

That the leftists in Government and on this board applaud the elimination of Bill of Rights Freedoms is also a concern.

Do they seriously not understand that they are opposing the absolute foundations of their liberty to not be dominated by the state and the state police?

What happened to/is happening to the Canadian Truckers is a warning of what happens when there is not a First Amendment protected by the Second Amendment.

It is no coincidence that these two amendments are inseparably placed in the order they were placed.

 

[bluesmoke]

What a word salad. God bless you.

So, you can't answer what is part and parcel to standard debate. There is nothing out of norm in my reply, nor that you can refute. So, you make unsupported accusation as your excuse to not engage in forthright debate. If you can't give an honest reply to what I honestly ask, see you on another thread.

 

[noonereal]

So, you can't answer what is part and parcel to standard debate. There is nothing out of norm in my reply, nor that you can refute. So, you make unsupported accusation as your excuse to not engage in forthright debate. If you can't give an honest reply to what I honestly ask, see you on another thread.

If you have a question, are in need of edification, ask in discernable English and I will be glad to offer you some tutelage.

As posted previous, it is, I have no clue what you are babbling about.

Peace

 

[RaleBulgarian]

Hillary lost …. did not fight for the battleground states (That's why they call them battleground states. You have to fight for them), where Trump visited more often than Hillary. Hillary not stepping a foot into WI.

Yep. Said the same and more since even before Election Day, 2016.

HRC bought into the “presumptive winner” narrative, entirely. She visited some states only once, and several not at all, while her opponent visited more states and made return trips to many.

HRC, personally, did not put in the work necessary to earn the win.

* Comey’s contribution deserves to be considered a genuine factor in any conversation regarding HRC’s loss, too.

Then there's the fact of Hillary having no connecting message, no vision, no cause while Trump's alt reality made a connection.

Opinion unsupported by facts. HRC lead her opponent in polling throughout the primary season. Connecting wasn’t a problem.

Hillary won the pop vote by 3M. However, take away the 4M she won by in CA and Trump won the pop vote in the remaining 49 states and DC, put together, by 1M.

Failed Trumpster argument. “If not for California”.

In 14 of the 21 states where HRC won the popular vote (taking EC votes), she did so by more than 10 points, including 8 states by 20 or more points.

There was no factual support of the alt reality "Wall", but it made a connection, and the southern border still makes a connection.

An undisputed fact.

What, specifically, did Hillary say or do that connected with the public?

You’ll have to take that up with those that she touched with her message.

That HRC consistently outpolled her opponent in averaged national polling throughout the ‘16 primary is an irrefutable fact.

 

[Lord Tammerlain]

You can't do one simple thing and pick out one single quote and use facts to refute what I said. Instead, you make an excuse, that you can't prove either, and runaway from what is the debate process.

Heiress apparent Hillary lost because she didn't understand how real the alt reality voters were to them and did not fight for the battleground states (That's why they call them battleground states. You have to fight for them), where Trump visited more often than Hillary. Hillary not stepping a foot into WI. Then there's the fact of Hillary having no connecting message, no vision, no cause while Trump's alt reality made a connection. Hillary won the pop vote by 3M. However, take away the 4M she won by in CA and Trump won the pop vote in the remaining 49 states and DC, put together, by 1M. There was no factual support of the alt reality "Wall", but it made a connection, and the southern border still makes a connection. What, specifically, did Hillary say or do that connected with the public?

FYI California is part of the US.

Take away a few states that voted for Trump and Hillary would have won both the popular vote and the electoral college

 

[Lord Tammerlain]

Yep. Said the same and more since even before Election Day, 2016.

HRC bought into the “presumptive winner” narrative, entirely. She visited some states only once, and several not at all, while her opponent visited more states and made return trips to many.

HRC, personally, did not put in the work necessary to earn the win.

* Comey’s contribution deserves to be considered a genuine factor in any conversation regarding HRC’s loss, too.

Opinion unsupported by facts. HRC lead her opponent in polling throughout the primary season. Connecting wasn’t a problem.

Failed Trumpster argument. “If not for California”.

In 14 of the 21 states where HRC won the popular vote (taking EC votes), she did so by more than 10 points, including 8 states by 20 or more points.

An undisputed fact.

You’ll have to take that up with those that she touched with her message.

That HRC consistently outpolled her opponent in averaged national polling throughout the ‘16 primary is an irrefutable fact.

Hillary lost in the last week or too when the story about I believes emails found on Weiners laptop broke in my opinion at least

 

[RaleBulgarian]

Hillary lost in the last week or too when the story about I believes emails found on Weiners laptop broke in my opinion at least

Concur. I believe that Comey’s letter to Congress on 10/28/16, and public comments regarding the reviving and follow up conclusion of the HRC email investigation effectively put the final nail in her campaign’s coffin.

 

[RaleBulgarian]

I said: “You have your reality, they have theirs. Who's to say which is real?”

You are conflating actual reality with perceived reality.

The first can be proven with objective facts. The second cannot.

You’re welcome.

 

[RaleBulgarian]

View attachment 67376149​

Personally, I’d be happy if both simply stfu, but that’s no more likely to happen than any apology.

 

[RaleBulgarian]

Your post implied that each person has their own reality, and that all "realities" are equally factual and genuine. That, of course, is bullshit and reminiscent of Kellyanne Conway's alternative facts statement. I find such declarations abhorrent and an insult to my intelligence.

To make matters worse, your successive clarifications regarding that post were anything but clear.

 

[rahl]

Durham is bringing indictments.

What indictments do you think he can bring, when the statute of limitations has expired?

He's doing so very carefully and without leaks and media drama.

What do you think he can do to get around the statute of limitations?

Unlike every investigation that democrats run, which is intended only to feed media narratives.

This is an actual investigation, and the only time we hear what's going on is when court documents are filed. As it should be.

So what charges do you think he can bring? lol

 

[RaleBulgarian]

What happens when the indictments start returning plea deals, flipping informants and producing convictions?

As likely as

 

[bluesmoke]

Facts.

Alt-fact dominate the politics of today. That is reality. That is a fact.

 

[Jay Falcon]

Alt-fact dominate the politics of today. That is reality. That is a fact.

For who?

 

[The AntiDonald]

The word indictment proves you wrong. Try harder.

Many are indicted that never get convicted.