Lurker > darkknight109

Man, gotta love our FPTP system, eh?

Popular vote:
Bloc Quebecois: 7.92%
Greens: 6.34%

Seats:
Bloc Quebecois: 32
Greens: 3
---

Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster.
Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror!

zebatov posted...

I need to share this here because I can guarantee it wasnt the only example of it this year. I feel like... 25,000-something other examples of it occurred. Deceased, non-citizen who had never received a voter card before this year receives a voter card.

Oh no, 25,000 extra votes? That's like... almost a tenth of one percent of Canada's population! Stop the presses - if this is true*, the Liberals' margin of victory might be slightly wrong.

*(this is not, in fact, true)
---

Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster.
Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror!

zebatov posted...

Lol in Vancouver maybe.

I lived in Calgary during the Harper years and I can confirm that gas, indeed, cleared $1.30 a litre at that time.
---

Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster.
Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror!

Well, this is about the best result possible given the possibilities, really.

I wonder where all the Cons are who spent the last two years telling me that Trudeau was toast as of this election.

TheWitchMorgana posted...

xjayguyx posted...

Yay another 4 cringy years in Canada.

minorities don't typically last more than 2 years

I could see this one being more stable than most.

Politics has changed since we last saw a Liberal minority. The NDP have abandoned a lot of their Democratic-Socialist roots and moved more towards the centre, while left-wing views against the Conservatives have hardened. The Liberals in the Martin era were still reeling from the sponsorship scandal and all but collapsed over the following two elections, giving the NDP an opportunity to eat their lunch.

In the current environment, I don't think the NDP voters would look kindly on them collapsing a Liberal government if it led to the Conservatives taking their place. The current Liberals are not as unstable as their early-2000s counterparts and unless that changes, I think the Liberals will have a solid government, albeit one where they will need to make concessions to either the NDP or the Bloc (my money's on the former) to stay intact.
---

Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster.
Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror!

Kungfu Kenobi posted...

It's funny, I'm voting Conservative, but if the NDP had agreed to Ranked Ballot I would be voting something like

1 Green
2 NDP
3 PPC
4 Liberal
5 Conservative

Like literally anyone but the core left/right parties. Anyone.

I'm actually legitimately curious as to what confluence of factors would make you vote for your least-wanted party, because I can't even imagine a hypothetical scenario where that would be the right move to make.

Krazy_Kirby posted...

a ranked ballot sounds like an incredibly bad idea

Why? What's wrong with it?

It ensures that votes aren't wasted. Hell, I'd love a ranked ballot in my current predicament.

My party of choice is currently running fourth in my riding. I'm not going to vote for them, because a) My vote would be a waste, given that they have no reasonable path to victory in this riding and b) A party I really don't want to get in is competitive here. In a ranked ballot world, I could put my first-choice party at the top of my ballot and, if no one earns an outright majority in the first-choice counting, my votes could be rolled into my second- or third-choice candidates without me worrying about wasting my vote.
---

Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster.
Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror!

I'm in one of those annoying toss-up ridings that makes the FPTP system so infuriating. I can't vote for who I want, because I have to vote strategically to make sure the guys I *don't* want don't get in via vote splitting.
---

Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster.
Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror!

Kyuubi4269 posted...

I don't; If they're in competition and get absolutely demolished, they never should've entered and their coach is trash for bringing them in to competition they're not remotely ready for.

Apparently you don't understand how sports work.

It's not the coach's decision as to whether or not the team plays. You can't just say, "Sorry, team's not ready, we're not going to bother showing up." When the season starts, you're given the dates, times, and locations for your games, and you are expected to be there for game time.
---

Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster.
Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror!

Blaqthourne posted...

If that's such a big issue, intitute a mercy rule.

My thoughts exactly.

If you don't want teams running up the score, end the game after they clear 30. Don't tell kids, "OK, you're winning by too much now, so stop trying." That's a terrible message.

I get that you don't want a team of 7-year-olds getting their doors blown off so badly that they lose the desire to ever play the game again... but the rule, as written, is still incredibly dumb.
---

Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster.
Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror!

I mean, Trump's bad, but unless you count backstabbing the Kurds like an asshole, he hasn't directly killed anyone.

Xi is the worst of the bunch, followed by Putin, followed by Trump.
---

Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster.
Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror!

Depends. If it's a short flight (less than two hours), sure. If it's a longer flight, but they're trading me the same type of seat (aisle for aisle), sure. Otherwise, no. I have long legs and I pay extra for the aisle seat for a reason.
---

Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster.
Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror!

Why the fuck is everyone in this topic spelling it "Muensters"? It's "Munsters" - right there in the show name.

And they're also the ones that I'd choose. They're actually pretty nice and seem less likely to murder their neighbours in a bout of what they consider good-spirited fun and games.
---

Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster.
Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror!

And American cops wonder why their support has been plummeting lately.

Fuck me, right in front of her eight-year-old nephew too.

streamofthesky posted...

I know the dude meant well, but his suspicions are correct.

If he hadn't called for help w/ what seemed off, she'd still be alive.

Neighbour: I was just worried that something might be wrong.
Cops: And we made sure there was. What more do you want?

Like, seriously, how does this happen? Neighbour phones in a wellness check on a non-emergency line and these fucking cowboys start creeping around the house like it's a drug den. Why was their first action not to knock on the front door and announce themselves?
---

Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster.
Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror!

Fenriswolf posted...

Zareth posted...

Killing your own citizens and making them dead is pretty disrespectful too.

But killing hundreds of thousands of foreigners and imprisoning them in refugee camps is the norm for democracies right?

Whataboutism.
---

Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster.
Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror!

DPsx7 posted...

Going back to what I said about them not actually doing any work

Dems have been passing literally hundreds of bills that sit and die on Mitch McConnell's desk.

The "they do nothing" myth is just right-wing ignorance.

ForteEXE3850 posted...

Reminder that every news outlet poll said Hillary was going to become president guaranteed.

Reminder that this isn't true and never was.

Most reputable polling outfits had Hillary at a ~65-75% chance of winning the presidency. Factoring in margin of error, three outcomes to the election were statistically reasonable: a narrow Trump victory, a narrow Clinton victory, or a Clinton landslide.

We got the former. Trump's margin was narrow and most people don't appreciate how close it truly was. In a country with an electorate of more than 100 million people, it came down to fewer than 100k people spread across three states that ultimately decided the election. If less than one tenth of one percent of the electorate - a crowd small enough to fit in a football stadium - changed their vote, Clinton would have taken it. That's how close it was. It was the tightest election of the last 50 years, with the sole exception of the Bush Jr. elections.

Much like the above, everyone that says, "All the media and polls were completely wrong, because they said Clinton had a 99% of winning!" probably weren't actually looking at the polls and are just repeating what right-wing propaganda sites were telling them those sites were saying.
---

Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster.
Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror!

Destiny posted...

darkknight109 posted...

Blizzard is completely within their rights to suspend a player for voicing political views during one of their broadcasts, inasmuch as it impacts their bottom line.

yeah?

then why didn't they take any action on the american team that did the exact same thing?

I have no idea, nor do I care. How Blizzard chooses to mete out discipline is entirely up to them.

I simply pass judgement on the end results. Which, in this case, was tremendously shitty.
---

Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster.
Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror!

papercup posted...

...Are we so sure it's an accident if it keeps happening?

In any other administration, I'd say this was probably deliberate.

Trump, though? I actually believe his people would be this stupid.
---

Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster.
Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror!

Blizzard is completely within their rights to suspend a player for voicing political views during one of their broadcasts, inasmuch as it impacts their bottom line.

And I'm completely within my rights to tell them to go piss up a rope when they find themselves standing on the side of tyrants and dictatorships and defending them from criticism.

Not all views are created equal, Blizzard. The fact that China and its consumers have a different view of the situation in Hong Kong than Westerners does not mean those two stances are morally equivalent.
---

Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster.
Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror!

Why the fuck is Fates on that list instead of literally any other handheld Fire Emblem?

Fates isn't even that old.
---

Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster.
Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror!

Trails of Cold Steel III and it's not even close. Still wish it was XSEED doing the translation rather than NISA, but it should still turn out awesome. Kiseki is hands-down the most engrossing console series running at this point.
---

Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster.
Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror!

None at-fault. Been in two where I got rear-ended under almost identical circumstances (shitty winter weather, someone approaching the light too fast, didn't realize there was black ice and slid into me), and had two close calls (in the first a drunk driver on the highway coming the opposite way drifted across the centreline, clipped the car two cars in front of me, which then spun and took out the car directly in front of me, which then also spun and nearly hit me, but drifted into the ditch instead - it's kind of a miracle there were no serious injuries that came out of it, though one guy looked like he had whiplash; in the second, also in shitty winter weather, some guy missed his turnoff and hit the brakes right in the middle of the road to try and dodge traffic so he could suddenly veer over - I was behind him and I had to lock up my brakes to try and avoid hitting him and it's a fucking miracle I didn't, as I managed to stop less than a centimetre off his back bumper).
---

Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster.
Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror!

It's weird that the US has the highest number of good guys with guns in the world, yet the bad guys with guns still keep racking up the body count.

Doesn't that seem weird to anyone else?

Kyuubi4269 posted...

Sounds like gun possession outside needs to be mandated.

Because clearly sticking guns in the hands of people who don't want them and/or shouldn't have them is going to improve things oh so much.
---

Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster.
Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror!

Mark Hamill > Jack Nicholson > Heath Ledger > Cesar Romero

Haven't seen the others yet to comment.
---

Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster.
Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror!

The_tall_midget posted...

darkknight109 posted...

Fun fact: Trump has now spent more taxpayer dollars bailing out farmers than Obama did bailing out auto companies.

I guess farmers are all leftists and Marxists in your eyes?

Let's see, would I prefer to have Trump waste money on farmers who actually contribute to the economy in some way, somehow, or have the bunch of crazies the democrats call candidates promising to throw all that money at groups who are utterly useless, do not have jobs, and are parasites to society.

Hmmm... I'll have to think about that one.

TIL: Auto-companies do not contribute to the economy or produce jobs, according to The_tall_midget
---

Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster.
Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror!

The_tall_midget posted...

Krazy_Kirby posted...

ugh, why does food cost money... if i want to eat something i should just be able take it!

I know, right? Marxists and socialists are a cancer to society. I mean seriously, what part of "you're not entitled to other people's shit" is difficult to comprehend to those entitled geniuses? Didn't their parents not educate them that they should not steal from people?

Man. Must be a complete coincidence that broke students with little job prospects, criminals, welfare moochers, and the typical groups with victim complexes and entitlement issues happen to be heavily leftists, right? When you have nothing, I suppose stealing becomes a far more moral act.

Fun fact: Trump has now spent more taxpayer dollars bailing out farmers than Obama did bailing out auto companies.

I guess farmers are all leftists and Marxists in your eyes?
---

Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster.
Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror!

InfestedAdam posted...

Come to think of it. What is the Starcraft equivalent of Titans/Bio-titans?

If you're going by the cutscenes, Ultralisks are the size of small bio-titans (they look to be roughly the size of Trygons or Hierodules). Nydus worms are probably the only true titan-sized thing that's shown up that isn't a starship.
---

Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster.
Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror!

Unbridled9 posted...

darkknight109 posted...

What's your definition of "best"? The one the orks stack up best against? The one that best counters the orks? Or just the one that makes for the most entertaining game?

Latter.

From a tactics perspective, the Zerg, because it would be a chaotic, up-close brawl (which is very orky, in its own way). From a lore perspective, the Protoss.
---

Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster.
Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror!

What's your definition of "best"? The one the orks stack up best against? The one that best counters the orks? Or just the one that makes for the most entertaining game?
---

Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster.
Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror!

Trails of Cold Steel (PS3/PC)
To the Moon (PC)
Super Smash Bros. Ultimate (Switch)

Other short list candidates included:
Animal Crossing: New Leaf
Breath of the Wild
Skyrim
---

Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster.
Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror!

aDirtyShisno posted...

Free healthcare?

Available to anyone else with the same economic status.

aDirtyShisno posted...

Free college

Available to anyone else with the same economic status and academic standing/

aDirtyShisno posted...

years before it was offered to everyone

Incorrect on two counts.

First off, it's not "free" - these are scholarships and grants. Second of all, everyone else already had access to them; this law just extended coverage to Dreamers as well.

aDirtyShisno posted...

not even mentioning that they get to have drivers licenses

Just like everyone else?

aDirtyShisno posted...

to make our roads safer and all that bologna

Would you prefer they not have a reliable form of ID? No insurance in case of an accident? Seems kind of daft to me...
---

Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster.
Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror!

streamofthesky posted...

This is a ridiculous overreach and will never stand up in court when someone's actually hit by it and says their first amendment rights have been violated.

Nope - they've got their bases covered. Shockingly, before a major government issues guidelines, they usually have a lawyer or two look them over first.

Again, from the text of the document itself, all they've done is clarified that using the phrase 'illegal alien' "with intent to demean, humiliate or harass a person" constitutes harassment and will be prosecuted as such. Same goes with threatening to call ICE, absent evidence of an actual crime that would warrant their involvement, or attacking other people for not having a good grasp of English.

That's all textbook harassment, a law that's been in the books for ages.

This isn't a new law or anything like that; just clarifications on conduct that does and does not meet the definition of criminal harassment.
---

Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster.
Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror!

aDirtyShisno posted...

In California illegal immigrants tend to have improved rights. Not necessarily in every aspect but pretty darn frequently.

*citation needed*
---

Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster.
Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror!

aDirtyShisno posted...

But it did protect from banning words. Until now, at least in New York City it doesnt.

Intent is required for harassment. Using a word you dont like doesnt itself prove intent, especially when that word is the definition of an object. That object being an immigrant who has entered the country unlawfully.

Yes, and that's exactly what the law entails.

It's not "you can't use the phrase 'illegal alien' in any context"; written into the guidelines is the following text. You aren't allowed to use the phrase "with intent to demean, humiliate or harass a person".

I mean, did you even read the text of the guideline? It's all written right in there and nothing about it seems unusual or breaking with convention.
---

Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster.
Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror!

aDirtyShisno posted...

Fun times living without the First Amendment.

The first amendment has never protected harassment, libel, slander, threats, or other such forms of harmful speech. It's not a "I can say whatever I want, whenever I want, with zero consequences" get-out-of-jail-free card.
---

Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster.
Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror!

OhhhJa posted...

I really doubt the chinese government wants another infamous Tiananmen square scenario to never live down

Yes, Tiananmen Square was a horrible massacre and then China learned their lesson and never did anything authoritarian ever again.

Sarcasm aside, China paid little price for the massacre, and the world really didn't hold them to account in any meaningful way. And, of course, their position is much different today - back then they were an isolated nation, with their one superpower buddy in the USSR facing rapidly flagging fortunes and being just two years away from dissolution. Today, they *are* a superpower, one with ties to virtually every nation on the planet.

More to the point, while China probably wants to avoid the national embarrassment of another slaughter of unarmed protesters (probably the only reason why they haven't moved in the military already), if those protesters had guns I don't believe for a minute they would hesitate. Again, there's a big difference between civil protests and armed rebellion and it wouldn't take much for China to paint armed protesters as the latter.
---

Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster.
Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror!

Mead posted...

Nichtcrawler X posted...

What?! Can you imagine what the situation would be with more access to guns during protests like that? A bloody massacre it would be.

Thered be a deterrent to the mainland police just abducting and beating helpless people the way they are at the moment

No, there wouldn't. It would give the Chinese government all the justification they needed to move in with the military, since they could now credibly make the case that they were dealing with an armed rebellion, rather than civil unrest.

The protesters would not win that fight. Nobody wins a fight with the military, except for another military. It would be a fucking bloodbath.
---

Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster.
Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror!

Gobi's Valley.
---

Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster.
Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror!

Lokarin posted...

why are you so poor

...is this a legit question?
---

Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster.
Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror!

BlackScythe0 posted...

Whats funny is I keep finding out new things.

Legal eagle points out the transcript even lays out a charge for violating the emoluments clause.

How stupid can he be to give so much evidence against himself? Did he actually think this helped him?

Legal Eagle is fantastic. One of my favourite YT channels.
---

Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster.
Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror!

Part of me just wants the bullshit to end, but I still hold by what I've said since 2016: I hope Trump isn't removed from office. The voters made this mess, the voters need to be the ones to clean it up.

Impeachment just gives Trump, and everyone who thinks like him, an excuse. "They couldn't beat us at the ballot box, so the Deep State got us instead. We'd still be winning today if it wasn't for them."
---

Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster.
Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror!

OhhhJa posted...

That source isnt good enough! Find me another! Pathetic lol. If you wanna wear blinders be my guest

That source isn't a source, period.

And it doesn't even say what you're claiming. All it says is, "It seems possible Obama spied on Trump", which is a far cry from saying, "Obama spied on Trump." (spoiler alert: Obama did not spy on Trump)

The_tall_midget posted...

No, you don't understand. A conservative piece is obviously false

Do all you conservatives not know what an opinion piece is? Seriously? No one ever taught you what a proper source is?

Put it this way: citing an opinion piece as a source for your arguments is about as valid of me saying "I have proof Trump is guilty!", with that proof being a post I made where I say, "I think Trump is guilty!".

OhhhJa posted...

If anything trump said is so terrible, why did Schiff feel the need to add a dramatic parody of the call with fake quotes? Who the fuck even does that in an opening statement in the halls of Congress about a supposed very serious matter. Extremely unprofessional trying to turn the situation into theatre. The pathetic part is that I'm sure a ton of leftists didnt even realize it was parody and actually thought that was the real conversation

Yeah, it's horrible for someone to joke about something very serious! Kind of like when Trump insisted he was joking about offering pardons to officials who broke the law to get his wall built faster. Or when he said he was joking about asking Russia to hack into Clinton's e-mail. Or when he said he was just kidding about paying the legal bills of any supporters who were charged for assaulting protesters. Or when he insisted he was just goofing when telling police officers they should be rougher to people they're arresting. Or the knee-slapper he told about staying on for longer than his two-term limit because the time he spent under the Mueller investigation didn't count. Or that fantastic laugher he made to James Comey about dropping his investigation into Michael Flynn.

Yes, every single one of those is real, and yes, Trump or his spokespeople claimed afterwards that he was just kidding.

Sorry, but you guys have absolutely no ground to be clutching pearls over someone claiming, "It was just a joke!"
---

Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster.
Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror!

I appreciate your patience - crafting these posts takes time and I'm a busy man. Now let's take a look at what you brought me...

OhhhJa posted...

https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2017/03/06/obama-spying-trump-fisa-tapping-glenn-reynolds-column/98779170/

Oh, another opinion piece by a conservative columnist, this one over two years old and published before any serious digging had been done into the allegations (spoiler alert: like most things Trump says, they were complete bullshit). And here I thought this would actually be something for me to dig into.

It's weird how you can't seem to find any actual reporting on this issue, just a bunch of conservative conjecture.

OhhhJa posted...

Funny how you'll take an article at face value until it involves your golden boy then I have to find the perfect MSM source that caters to your liking.

An argument is only as good as the data it's built on. If I see you building an argument based on specious conjecture and conspiracy theorizing, I'm not going to take it seriously.

Requesting your sources for an allegation is not an unreasonable ask.

OhhhJa posted...

This article is actually more damning anyway as it goes into detail about his spying on many others

"Spying" (actually following a legal process of investigating potential wrongdoing) on "many others" (actually naming just a handful of alleged incidents, some of which haven't even been substantiated by actual evidence) proves absolutely nothing related to your core allegation (that Obama spied on Trump).

This opinion piece doesn't even address that directly - it dances around the question it posed, "Did Obama spy on Trump?", by giving circumspect non-answers like, "Its certainly not impossible to believe that the Obama administration spied on Trump" or "Nor is it unbelievable that under the Obama administration, supposedly non-partisan civil servants would go after political opponents" or "If those limits were exceeded". At no point does the columnist ever state, "Obama spied on Trump"; he just says, "Well, it sounds like it's possible" in a few different ways, before drawing the reader off on side tangents.

And, once again, I reiterate that this is an opinion piece. It's not factual reporting, it's just someone's point of view - in this case, a conservative saying, "I think that maybe, possible, Obama might have done spying on Trump, but maybe not, who knows?"
---

Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster.
Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror!

The_tall_midget posted...

Oh please, the agricultural sector has been subsidized to hell for as long as I can remember.

Not nearly to this level.

Trump has now paid more in compensation to the farm sector than Obama paid to the auto-companies during their bailout crisis, something that drew far, far more pushback from right-wingers for "socialism". And it's worth noting that Obama's bailout was due to market conditions that were global in nature, while Trump's bailout is due to a trade war that is entirely of his own doing.

OhhhJa posted...

Even usa today published a story on it. Are they also a right wing rag?

Go ahead and post it then.
---

Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster.
Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror!

The_tall_midget posted...

Then I am sure that the very, very intelligent dems are going to easily prove he did something wrong. Like they did for the last 3 years?

darkknight109 posted...

Reminder: Over 1000 former federal prosecutors, including both Democrats and Republicans, signed a statement saying they believe Trump violated the law, based on the findings of the Mueller report, and they believe he should have been charged and prosecuted for such actions were he not a sitting president.

And, in a follow-up, over 300 former national security and foreign policy officials have signed a statement supporting impeachment proceedings and calling Trump's actions a "profound national security concern".

But yes, clearly this is all much ado about nothing.

---

Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster.
Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror!

Fuck me, Trump's an idiot. His tweet, from this morning:

To show you how dishonest the LameStream Media is, I used the word Liddle, not Liddle, in discribing Corrupt Congressman Liddle Adam Schiff. Low ratings CNN purposely took the hyphen out and said I spelled the word little wrong. A small but never ending situation with CNN!

He criticizes CNN for their grammar while:
-Calling an apostrophe a hyphen
-Misspelling the word "describing"
-Ignoring the fact that adding an apostrophe to the end of the word "liddle" is both grammatically incorrect (it's not indicating possession or missing characters) and doesn't suddenly turn it into a correctly spelled word

I mean, beyond the fact that this is grade school-level errors from the most powerful man in the world, it's Grammar Naziing 101, man: before ripping someone else for a grammatical mistake, make sure it's actually a mistake and make sure your own criticism doesn't have any errors of its own.
---

Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster.
Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror!

OhhhJa posted...

Blighboy posted...

Trump tried to use corruption to expose corruption.

https://nypost.com/2019/04/15/behind-the-obama-administrations-shady-plan-to-spy-on-the-trump-campaign/

You mean like this? Hell, spying on opposition has basically been par for the course for politicians. You just have to be at the cool kids table to get away with it

Nice opinion piece from a right-wing rag.

You have any factual stories you'd like to back up your assertion or just more conspiracy theories?
---

Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster.
Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror!

OhhhJa posted...

They constantly harp on McConnell for his ties to russia but couldn't care less about Biden's own shady dealings.

What shady dealings?

1) Ukraine's own (now former) prosecutor has come out and said Hunter Biden was never a subject of investigation and they have no evidence or allegations he ever participated in wrongdoing, as their investigation dealt with events that occurred years before he joined the company.
2) Joe Biden did not take any actions pushing for the removal of Viktor Shokin when the investigation into Burisma was active; when he did push for Shokin's ouster, it was long after the investigation had gone dormant due to lack of credible evidence.
3) Joe Biden does not have the clout to unilaterally make those sorts of decisions (and he bragged he even dared Ukraine to "call Obama" and get his take on the matter) - the push to remove Shokin, by all accounts, originated from the US embassy in Ukraine, not Biden.
4) More to the point, the EU, the IMF, and regular Ukrainian citizens were also agitating for Shokin's removal at the same time. You gonna tell me that all of them had sons working on Burisma's board too?
5) Shokin was legendarily soft on corruption, prosecuting no members of the previous or at-the-time current government despite ample evidence of misdeeds. If you're trying to shield your son's company from corruption charges, getting rid of a prosecutor who is soft on corruption is a really stupid idea. This is borne out by the fact that Shokin's replacement re-opened the investigation into Burisma (with nary a whisper of objection from Biden or the Americans) and eventually came to the same conclusion as both the previous prosecutor and an independent British investigation that there was no grounds for charges.
---

Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster.
Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror!

Reminder: Over 1000 former federal prosecutors, including both Democrats and Republicans, signed a statement saying they believe Trump violated the law, based on the findings of the Mueller report, and they believe he should have been charged and prosecuted for such actions were he not a sitting president.

And, in a follow-up, over 300 former national security and foreign policy officials have signed a statement supporting impeachment proceedings and calling Trump's actions a "profound national security concern".

But yes, clearly this is all much ado about nothing.
---

Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster.
Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror!

The criminal being arrested for flushing an unknown white powder down a toilet: "oBsTrUcTiOn Of JuStiCe Is SuCh a BuLlShIt ChArGe."
---

Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster.
Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror!

OhhhJa posted...

GanonsSpirit posted...

Because Trump said so, duh.

I mean... the fucking mueller report itself came to that conclusion lmao

It also laid out the myriad ways he committed Obstruction of Justice, so....
---

Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster.
Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror!

TheWorstPoster posted...

darkknight109 posted...

Odds are excellent he gets impeached.

0% chance he gets convicted, though. Moscow Mitch would never allow it.

It has been disproven that Trump colluded with Russia. Get over it.

The fuck does Russia have to do with this?
---

Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster.
Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror!