Lurker > karlpilkington4

Machete posted...

karlpilkington4 posted...

Machete posted...

Imagine being this invested in that story XD

I literally just copied and pasted what I was about to post in the other topic, and just hit create topic. If you think 13 seconds is being "this invested", then sure.

I mean mentally and emotionally. How long it took and the ease with which to post it are not relevant to what I said. That is a separate form of investment.

Excuse me for not supporting liars and wanting the truth to be told.
---

Is This The Krusty Krab? "No This Is Patrick!"

Machete posted...

Imagine being this invested in that story XD

I literally just copied and pasted what I was about to post in the other topic, and just hit create topic. If you think 13 seconds is being "this invested", then sure.
---

Is This The Krusty Krab? "No This Is Patrick!"

MC_BatCommander posted...

I don't know who gun girl is so ok

She's a Youtuber. She likes guns her name is Kaitlin Bennet if you're curious
---

Is This The Krusty Krab? "No This Is Patrick!"

spudger posted...

you felt so burnt you had to make a new topic?

this is pathetic

No, I got blocked and someone asked me a question. When I went to post it, I realized Shock Monkey blocked me.

Excuse me for answering a question though
---

Is This The Krusty Krab? "No This Is Patrick!"

Shock Monkey just blocked me, so I cant reply in his topic which are full of lies.

Kaitlin Bennett was accused of pooping her pants at a party. This was proved to be false.



Also you can look up the twitter post yourself and see everyone including Kaitlin replying to it. The girl who actually did it,worked with Kaitlin. Its literally all there. No one is disputing it (besides random trolls)

Im not gonna link to the exact twitter, because of some mild language. I just got out of purgatory.

Thanks, and goodnight
---

Is This The Krusty Krab? "No This Is Patrick!"

sLaCkEr408___RJ posted...

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]

I said "I don't know who this is". This was before it was explained. Other people were also asking for context.

I meant no disrespect. I thought it was a YouTuber or something. How does that warrant a warning and suspension. Felt trapped and unfair

The moderation system on this site is a joke. Dont try and make sense of it.
---

Is This The Krusty Krab? "No This Is Patrick!"

Shablagoo posted...

Axiom posted...

Shablagoo posted...

Idk if I know any Trump supporters IRL. One former coworker but she was kind of cuckoo like she joined a mid-level marketing scheme and became a born-again Christian all within the couple of months that I knew her so she may have just been looking for anything to latch on to.

I've known a few. They were all really old men who tbh probably wouldn't hurt anyone. One of them was half-insane though and wanted Comey to be executed for being a traitor

lol wow

karlpilkington4 posted...

ScazarMeltex posted...

shockthemonkey posted...

Trump supporters could be the most outwardly nice people and it doesnt matter since their politics are yay concentration camps!

Pretty much this.

Imagine unironically believing this

Do you really think that the detention centers are treating people humanely, based on whats been reported about them?

I think most govt agencies do a poor job, especially when you dont have enough resources to handle all the people coming in. Do I think that the very majority of people in these centers are being treated humanly? Yes. Are there isolated exceptions that the media will isolate and pretend to the majority? Yes.
---

Is This The Krusty Krab? "No This Is Patrick!"

ScazarMeltex posted...

shockthemonkey posted...

Trump supporters could be the most outwardly nice people and it doesnt matter since their politics are yay concentration camps!

Pretty much this.

Imagine unironically believing this
---

Is This The Krusty Krab? "No This Is Patrick!"

Irony posted...

He had multiple warrants out on him like your typical Trump supporter

Nice backwards logic, insinuating that there aren't liberals who voted for Hilary with a violent history.
---

Is This The Krusty Krab? "No This Is Patrick!"

I'm back from a completely unfair warning.

You and me both
---

Is This The Krusty Krab? "No This Is Patrick!"

CableZL posted...

karlpilkington4 posted...

After the press briefing, Mulvaney walked back his previous remarks, claiming that the media had "misconstrued" his comments "to advance a biased and political witch hunt against President Trump," adding, Let me be clear, there was absolutely no quid pro quo between Ukrainian military aid and any investigation into the 2016 election."

There ya go. From his own words. There was no quid pro quo. Not sure what else there is to argue. You seem to think an edited video and a back and fourth argument with an interviewer is some sort of proof of anything.

LOL, sure, and while he's denying the quid pro quo after already admitting to it, he's trying to get people to believe he didn't say the exact words he's on video saying. During his interview on Fox News with Chris Wallace, he tried to say that he said during the press conference that there were two reasons for the withholding of the funds when he clearly stated there were 3 reasons, including the investigation into the DNC server.

There's a difference between mixing up your words in a heated argument and directly lying about what you're on video saying during your own press conference. Then directly lying about what you're on video saying in the days after as if the video of you saying it doesn't exist. Also, the reporter asked him to clarify what he said, saying "What you described is a quid pro quo." Mulvaney followed that up by saying "we do that all the time." It wasn't even a heated situation. It was just a request for clarification and he said they do it all the time and that people need to get over it.

You cant have it both ways. Either his words have weight or they dont.
---

Is This The Krusty Krab? "No This Is Patrick!"

"The president never told me to withhold any money until the Ukrainians did anything related to the server." -
---

Is This The Krusty Krab? "No This Is Patrick!"

CableZL posted...

karlpilkington4 posted...

So did he or did he not say-

"The holding of the money had nothing to do with Biden"?

I think you're confused about something. He said it had nothing to do with Biden, but admitted that pressuring Ukraine to investigate the DNC server was part of the reason the funds were held up.

Again, the latter is indeed a quid pro quo, and would be an extra stipulation placed on releasing the funds that Congress had already allocated. That's unconstitutional.

After the press briefing, Mulvaney walked back his previous remarks, claiming that the media had "misconstrued" his comments "to advance a biased and political witch hunt against President Trump," adding, Let me be clear, there was absolutely no quid pro quo between Ukrainian military aid and any investigation into the 2016 election."

There ya go. From his own words. There was no quid pro quo. Not sure what else there is to argue. You seem to think an edited video and a back and fourth argument with an interviewer is some sort of proof of anything.
---

Is This The Krusty Krab? "No This Is Patrick!"

CableZL posted...

karlpilkington4 posted...

He didnt directly say that. He did directly say The holding of the money had nothing to do with Biden
Funny how you want to believe one thing but not the other.

Yes he did, it's on video and I quoted where he said it. The reporter asks for clarification because what he described is indeed a quid pro quo. He then admitted that they do that all the time. It's also funny how his "3 reasons for holding the money up" turned into "2 reasons for holding the money up" when he was asked to further clarify in the days after the interview.

So did he or did he not say-

"The holding of the money had nothing to do with Biden"?
---

Is This The Krusty Krab? "No This Is Patrick!"

CableZL posted...

karlpilkington4 posted...

Mulvaney: The holding of the money had nothing to do with Biden"

Again, he directly stated that pushing Ukraine to investigate the DNC server was a part of why they held up the funding that Congress had already allocated.

He didnt directly say that. He did directly say The holding of the money had nothing to do with Biden
Funny how you want to believe one thing but not the other.
---

Is This The Krusty Krab? "No This Is Patrick!"

CableZL posted...

karlpilkington4 posted...

He gave 3 reasons. This is his exact words-

The holding of the money had nothing to do with Biden". There were 3 factors involved

1) The corruption in the country
2) Whether or not other countries were participating in the support of Ukraine
3)Whether or not they were cooperating in an ongoing investigation with the department of justice.(referencing the 2016 election and U.S. Attorney John Durham)

So if the money had to do with Biden, why did he say it didn't? Or should we ignore that part? All you're doing is attempting to play word games from a guy who can't seem to talk very well (ironically), while using an edited video to further exploit it.

He directly stated that investigating the DNC server was a part of the reason they held the money up.

Reporter: What you just described is a quid pro quo. It is "funding will not flow unless the investigation into the democratic server happens as well."
Mulvaney: We do that all the time.

Mulvaney: The holding of the money had nothing to do with Biden"
---

Is This The Krusty Krab? "No This Is Patrick!"

CableZL posted...

karlpilkington4 posted...

CableZL posted...

karlpilkington4 posted...

He said the money was held temporarily to make sure there was no corruption. Thats not illegal.

He said the investigation into the DNC was part of the reason the money was held up. That's called putting extra stipulations on money that has already been allocated by congress.

Watch the whole video, not this edited one. He gave 3 reasons for why the money was held, and corruption in the Ukraine was part of all 3.

Yes, the corruption in Ukraine was one reason. The investigation into the DNC was another reason.

Holding up funds that have been allocated by adding extra stipulations like investigating the DNC is unconstitutional as the supreme court has already ruled. Not sure what's so hard about this.

He gave 3 reasons. This is his exact words-

The holding of the money had nothing to do with Biden". There were 3 factors involved

1) The corruption in the country
2) Whether or not other countries were participating in the support of Ukraine
3)Whether or not they were cooperating in an ongoing investigation with the department of justice.(referencing the 2016 election and U.S. Attorney John Durham)

So if the money had to do with Biden, why did he say it didn't? Or should we ignore that part? All you're doing is attempting to play word games from a guy who can't seem to talk very well (ironically), while using an edited video to further exploit it.
---

Is This The Krusty Krab? "No This Is Patrick!"

CableZL posted...

karlpilkington4 posted...

He said the money was held temporarily to make sure there was no corruption. Thats not illegal.

He said the investigation into the DNC was part of the reason the money was held up. That's called putting extra stipulations on money that has already been allocated by congress.

Watch the whole video, not this edited one. He gave 3 reasons for why the money was held, and corruption in the Ukraine was part of all 3.
---

Is This The Krusty Krab? "No This Is Patrick!"

CableZL posted...

karlpilkington4 posted...

CableZL posted...

karlpilkington4 posted...

What money and what "extra conditions" has the president allocated?

Congress had already allocated that aid money to Ukraine. Trump's chief of staff directly admitted that the president held up the funds until they agreed to the quid pro quo and told people to get over it.

Please post him saying this.

This same press conference is the source of the "get over it" phrase that this topic is about

He said the money was held temporarily to make sure there was no corruption. Thats not illegal.
---

Is This The Krusty Krab? "No This Is Patrick!"

CableZL posted...

karlpilkington4 posted...

You made that statement of it being unconstitutional in response to someone talking about him selling t-shirts. You're being intentionally dishonest. Please stop.

Yes, I made the statement in response to selling t-shirts, then elaborated in a later post to clarify what I was referencing.

Your clarification was anything but clear. You know what you were doing. You deliberately excluded mentioning that he is allowed to sell shirts, in responding to a person talking about shirts. You then made a post about how it would be against the clause to host the G7 at his resort.

We're talking abbot shirt, bud. You deliberately changed the narrative to make is seem like selling shirts was illegal. The very first post you made is proof enough.
---

Is This The Krusty Krab? "No This Is Patrick!"

CableZL posted...

karlpilkington4 posted...

What money and what "extra conditions" has the president allocated?

Congress had already allocated that aid money to Ukraine. Trump's chief of staff directly admitted that the president held up the funds until they agreed to the quid pro quo and told people to get over it.

Please post him saying this.
---

Is This The Krusty Krab? "No This Is Patrick!"

CableZL posted...

karlpilkington4 posted...

You said "The constitution has provisions that strictly forbid" Trump from making money in private enterprise.

The constitution has provisions that strictly forbid Trump from accepting money from foreign states while he's president, which is what would happen if the G7 conference was held at his resort.

Wouldn't be surprised if it's already happening any WY since Saudi Arabia owns a floor in Trump Tower and the fact that Trump has businesses in other countries.

You made that statement of it being unconstitutional in response to someone talking about him selling t-shirts. You're being intentionally dishonest. Please stop.
---

Is This The Krusty Krab? "No This Is Patrick!"

CableZL posted...

karlpilkington4 posted...

You said his chief of staff's statements were unconstitutional.

I didn't say his statements were unconstitutional. I said that the quid pro quo he directly stated they do "all the time" is unconstitutional. Again, the Supreme Court has already ruled that the president cannot put extra conditions on money that congress has already allocated for a specific purpose.

What money and what "extra conditions" has the president allocated?
---

Is This The Krusty Krab? "No This Is Patrick!"

DezDroppedFreak posted...

No point in arguing with bottom of the barrel conservatrolls

Yea better to just make up lies and pretend to be morally superior/sarcasm
---

Is This The Krusty Krab? "No This Is Patrick!"

CableZL posted...

karlpilkington4 posted...

Southernfatman posted...

CableZL posted...

"

You seriously think you'll get anywhere arguing with these people? Honestly and I hate to be a jerk, but if you do, you're as delusional as they are.

He's literally making things up, but sure none of that matters...

TIL: Directly quoting Trump, Trump's chief of staff, and the Constitution is making things up

You said his chief of staff's statements were unconstitutional. That's a blatant lie. You said "The constitution has provisions that strictly forbid" Trump from making money in private enterprise. Another blatant lie. Lastly, collaborating with Saudi Arabia, and waiting for their investigations to end before committing to some sort of military strike is not "unfair foreign influence"

But sure, keep being dishonest and pretending like you're just quoting stuff..
---

Is This The Krusty Krab? "No This Is Patrick!"

Southernfatman posted...

CableZL posted...

"

You seriously think you'll get anywhere arguing with these people? Honestly and I hate to be a jerk, but if you do, you're as delusional as they are.

He's literally making things up, but sure none of that matters...
---

Is This The Krusty Krab? "No This Is Patrick!"

CableZL posted...

karlpilkington4 posted...

I already answered this. Its their country.

They have say over what they do in their country with their military.

Do you not understand how military cooperation works? And we aren't waiting for orders like you've incorrectly asserted. We are waiting for their investigation to be over, so we can collaborate effectively.

But sure, lets just not collaborate with them, and just send troops over to their country and attack at random.
---

Is This The Krusty Krab? "No This Is Patrick!"

CableZL posted...

karlpilkington4 posted...

Uh, because this happened IN SAUDI ARABIA. Maybe they should have some say/insight on what happens in THEIR country?

jfc

Yeah, they have some say/insight on what happens in their country, but what does that have to do with us or our military? Why are we waiting on their orders for what we do?

I already answered this. Its their country.
---

Is This The Krusty Krab? "No This Is Patrick!"

CableZL posted...

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1173368423381962752

Saudi Arabia oil supply was attacked. There is reason to believe that we know the culprit, are locked and loaded depending on verification, but are waiting to hear from the Kingdom as to who they believe was the cause of this attack, and under what terms we would proceed!

Why does Saudi Arabia dictate the terms under which we should proceed from our "locked and loaded" state?

Uh, because this happened IN SAUDI ARABIA. Maybe they should have some say/insight on what happens in THEIR country?

jfc
---

Is This The Krusty Krab? "No This Is Patrick!"

CableZL posted...

The Admiral posted...

You've shifted into outright conspiracies now.

No, I'm referencing something Trump himself said we were doing.

lol no he didnt. This is like your 5th lie in this topic so far.
---

Is This The Krusty Krab? "No This Is Patrick!"

CableZL posted...

karlpilkington4 posted...

>CableZL posted...

Not to mention, what these shirts are asking people to "get over" is yet another unconstitutional act by the Trump administration.

Imagine actually believing this.

Trump's chief of staff directly admitted it, and that same press conference is the source of the "get over it" quote.

I have news for everybody: Get over it. Theres going to be political influence in foreign policy,

There's always political influence in foreign policy. Nothing about that statement is unconstitutional.

Alot of people need to buy these shirts, it seems.
---

Is This The Krusty Krab? "No This Is Patrick!"

>CableZL posted...

Not to mention, what these shirts are asking people to "get over" is yet another unconstitutional act by the Trump administration.

Imagine actually believing this.
---

Is This The Krusty Krab? "No This Is Patrick!"

Here's what they look like. Anyone want one? I'm gonna order a few.


---

Is This The Krusty Krab? "No This Is Patrick!"

CableZL posted...

karlpilkington4 posted...

This entire statement is false.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Title_of_Nobility_Clause

Text
No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.[4]

Holding the G7 conference at his own resort would involve accepting money from heads of foreign states, which would be a direct violation of the emoluments clause.

Him having businesses in other countries and accepting said money at those locations would also be a direct violation of the emoluments clause.

Take it up with Senator Bob Corker and Judge Andrew Napolitano. Not to mention we are talking about t-shirts here. Do you even know how business and corporations work?
---

Is This The Krusty Krab? "No This Is Patrick!"

More sources

Donald Trump Can Legally Run His Company From the Oval Office

Traditionally, presidents have turned over their day jobs to a blind trust once they become commander in chief. But nothing in the law says they have to turn over the reins to anyone.

GOP Sen. Bob Corker was at dinner Monday night when a friend made a surprising revelation: The president isnt required to give up his or her financial dealings when they enter the Oval Office.

I just realized myself last night that it didnt apply, Corker told The Daily Beast Tuesday.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/donald-trump-can-legally-run-his-company-from-the-oval-office
---

Is This The Krusty Krab? "No This Is Patrick!"

CableZL posted...

tremain07 posted...

Trump works in a private enterprise I don't know why liberals are so mad at a guy trying to actually make money so what if he's the president.

The constitution has provisions that strictly forbid that kind of thing

This entire statement is false.

Andrew Napolitano: Can the president of the United States of America control directly or indirectly private, profit-making businesses while he or she is still in the White House? The short answer is yes! While there are many many laws in the land, federal and state, that would prevent members of Congress from doing this, members of the federal judiciary from doing in, state governors from doing it, there is no such law for the president or the vice president.

https://www.talksonlaw.com/briefs/can-president-trump-continue-to-run-his-businesses
---

Is This The Krusty Krab? "No This Is Patrick!"

I've never seen it. Maybe I will watch it later
---

Is This The Krusty Krab? "No This Is Patrick!"

I feel bad for the people who cant even manage to walk around with a hat on PEACEFULLY, without getting physically assaulted. .
---

Is This The Krusty Krab? "No This Is Patrick!"

Christian RULES posted...

So much flaming ITT for calling Trump supporters "stupid" REal classy

The tolerant left.
---

Is This The Krusty Krab? "No This Is Patrick!"

Clean your mirror
---

Is This The Krusty Krab? "No This Is Patrick!"

soulunison2 posted...

ishydtt

You what mate?
---

Is This The Krusty Krab? "No This Is Patrick!"