Board 8 > Politics Containment Topic 208 is Canceled Due to Rain

(+) Yeah! (+)

https://www.foxnews.com/us/michael-avenatti-dragged-girlfriend-out-of-apartment

She sounds like a gold digger who realized he doesn't really got all the money she expected.

That is also a far cry from swollen face from being attacked.
---

Avenatti's claiming security footage shows nothing she said happened actually happened, and that he authorized the release of said footage, so we should know soon enough I'd assume.
---

lol Wohl
---

The sad thing about this whole story is that the same people creaming their pants over Avenatti getting in trouble will IMMEDIATELY turn this into a see? You SHOULDNT believe women thing.
---

Its amazing though - how many times has this come up where there is no proof either way and here there actually IS proof that exonerates the dude.

If you didnt do anything wrong there will generally be proof somewhere of the fabrication
---

Apparently Avenatti said he would come after Wohl for fabricating this up and Wohl filed a police report that Avenatti was threatening to physically assault him?

Double lol Wohl.
---

I don't understand how some dude could fabricate a woman filing a police report that he dated for over a year or whatever. I mean... I don't get that part of it?
---

I have not been following this story closely at all - is there evidence Wohl is connection outside of Avenatti's accusation? I tried to google it and couldn't find anything but since this is a developing story all the news articles I found on the first couple pages are about things that happened in the past day.
---

Suprak the Stud posted...

I have not been following this story closely at all - is there evidence Wohl is connection outside of Avenatti's accusation? I tried to google it and couldn't find anything but since this is a developing story all the news articles I found on the first couple pages are about things that happened in the past day.

Wohl literally tweeted something along the lines of "Surefire strikes again" immediately after it dropped iirc

Yep, thanks! That phrase pulled it up for me.
---

https://nextshark.com/asian-white-supremacist-hank-yoo/

The Asian Nazi is probably going to prison slash...being deported??

Apparently he wasnt an American citizen.
---

Trump has now decided to go after John Roberts:

https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/1065346909362143232?s=21
https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/1065351478347530241?s=21
---

LordoftheMorons posted...

Trump has now decided to go after John Roberts:

https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/1065346909362143232?s=21
https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/1065351478347530241?s=21

No he didn't
---

https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/1065359825654169600?s=21

There are a lot of CRIMINALS in the Caravan. We will stop them. Catch and Detain! Judicial Activism, by people who know nothing about security and the safety of our citizens, is putting our country in great danger. Not good!

CRIMINALS

IM SCARED DADDY
---

Corrik posted...

LordoftheMorons posted...

Trump has now decided to go after John Roberts:

https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/1065346909362143232?s=21
https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/1065351478347530241?s=21

No he didn't

I mean, John Roberts came at him first, but hes definitely sparring back here
---

Jakyl25 posted...

Corrik posted...

LordoftheMorons posted...

Trump has now decided to go after John Roberts:

https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/1065346909362143232?s=21
https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/1065351478347530241?s=21

No he didn't

I mean, John Roberts came at him first, but hes definitely sparring back here

He is going at the 9th circuit or whatever while saying he disagrees that all the judiciary is independent of politics. He is not going at Roberts.
---

Yes after Roberts publicly said the courts are independent of politics

Trump didnt strike first, and this is hardly a vicious jab, but hes specifically addressing Roberts statement about Trumps previous statement.

Trump to the world: Judges are political
Roberts to Trump: Nuh uh
Trump to Roberts: Are so

Theyre regrettably in a verbal spat now
---

This is a verbal spat Roberts can't win, because he believes in the dignity of his office as Chief Justice. But the answer to Trump's factual claim is that while most 9th Circuit cases heard by the Supreme Court are overturned, the vast majority of 9th Circuit cases are not granted certiorari by the Supreme Court and are never ruled on by it. The Supreme Court is looking for the most controversial, difficult, cases to decide, so of course the rate at which lower courts are overturned is going to look high.
---

The 9th also doesn't even have the highest overturn rate (apparently it's like the third highest?)
---

I really hope Roberts responds to Trump's "If it's independent why do they overturn my stuff" with "Because it's illegal, bitch"
---

Jakyl25 posted...

Yes after Roberts publicly said the courts are independent of politics

Trump didnt strike first, and this is hardly a vicious jab, but hes specifically addressing Roberts statement about Trumps previous statement.

Trump to the world: Judges are political
Roberts to Trump: Nuh uh
Trump to Roberts: Are so

Theyre regrettably in a verbal spat now

Of course he is addressing him. The comment was that he is "going after Roberts".

He isn't.

It would be like me saying. "Jakyl, respectfully I disagree with you". And you going omg Corrik is going after me.

It is silly.
---

Don't worry, just give it time. He's gone after Roberts before, so I can't see him missing the opportunity to again.
---

StealThisSheen posted...

Don't worry, just give it time. He's gone after Roberts before, so I can't see him missing the opportunity to again.

I mean, he might! He just isn't here.
---

Oh, right. I'm not disagreeing.
---

https://twitter.com/tulsigabbard/status/1065289231977738240?s=21

Hey @realdonaldtrump: being Saudi Arabias bitch is not America First.
---

Damn, girl.
---

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

https://twitter.com/tulsigabbard/status/1065289231977738240?s=21

Hey @realdonaldtrump: being Saudi Arabias bitch is not America First.

Nor is being Assad's
---

Yeah, super weak coming from her
---

Jesus Christ, not even close to the same thing.
---

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

Jesus Christ, not even close to the same thing.

Howso?

Saudi Prince has somebody killed.
Trump: "I don't think he did it"

Assad has people killed.
Gabbard: "I don't think he did it"

I mean, hell, both even used the "There are several theories" language
---

StealThisSheen posted...

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

Jesus Christ, not even close to the same thing.

Howso?

Saudi Prince has somebody killed.
Trump: "I don't think he did it"

Assad has people killed.
Gabbard: "I don't think he did it"

I mean, hell, both even used the "There are several theories" language

No there's a huge difference.

One has a vagina and the other we assume has a penis.
---

TheRock1525 posted...

StealThisSheen posted...

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

Jesus Christ, not even close to the same thing.

Howso?

Saudi Prince has somebody killed.
Trump: "I don't think he did it"

Assad has people killed.
Gabbard: "I don't think he did it"

I mean, hell, both even used the "There are several theories" language

No there's a huge difference.

One has a vagina and the other we assume has a penis.

What
---

StealThisSheen posted...

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

Jesus Christ, not even close to the same thing.

Howso?

Saudi Prince has somebody killed.
Trump: "I don't think he did it"

Assad has people killed.
Gabbard: "I don't think he did it"

I mean, hell, both even used the "There are several theories" language

How about we leave the nuance-less arguments to Ulti, ok?

One situation has audio and video evidence, and the President responds with well theres a lot of money in arms deals, so meh.

The other involves a dictator already winning a war using chemical weapons, and Tulsi literally saying Assad is scumbag dictator who we should not work with, but supporting regime change on little evidence (Remember Iraq?) has basically always worked against us.

Look at her official website, it literally says this plain a day.

She is not Assads bitch, and its stupid as hell to say otherwise.
---

TheRock1525 posted...

One has a vagina and the other we assume has a penis.

Also pretty messed up you would imply Im supporting Tulsi because shes a woman, leave the white knight ad hominem to the chucklefuck alt right.
---

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

TheRock1525 posted...

One has a vagina and the other we assume has a penis.

Also pretty messed up you would imply Im supporting Tulsi because shes a woman, leave the white knight ad hominem to the chucklefuck alt right.

It was more of a joke about Trump being a dickless coward but okay.
---

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

The other involves a dictator already winning a war using chemical weapons, and Tulsi literally saying Assad is scumbag dictator who we should not work with, but supporting regime change on little evidence (Remember Iraq?) has basically always worked against us.

Also you're missing the part where she actually met with Assad shortly before the attack and expressed skepticism he was responsible for it.

The same skepticism that Trump has for the journalist killing.

I mean the message is fine but the messenger is uniquely terrible for this situation. Its like getting lectured on a healthy marriage by Bill Clinton.
---

Im not missing that part, actually, if youd take a second to read everything around Tulsi meet Assad, you might pick up on the distinction youre missing:

War and regime change doesnt work.

Not the same thing as lets continue to give weapons and support to this country.
---

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

Im not missing that part, actually, if youd take a second to read everything around Tulsi meet Assad, you might pick up on the distinction youre missing:

War and regime change doesnt work.

Not the same thing as lets continue to give weapons and support to this country.

CNN's Wolf Blitzer asked Gabbard if she didn't believe the President, the secretary of state and Pentagon officials, all of whom came to the same conclusion: that Assad's regime was responsible. Gabbard mentioned the previous invasion of Iraq, and the intelligence that suggested Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, which turned out to be false. "So, yes, I'm skeptical," she said.

She's not arguing regime change is bad, she's saying she's skeptical it was Assad.

Put it this way: are YOU skeptical it was Assad?
---

Shes right on this but she's a complete hypocrite here
---

Khawam, a former executive director and current board member of the Arab American Community Center for Economic and Social Services (AACCESS-Ohio), said this wasnt the first trip his Cleveland-based organization has coordinated for U.S. lawmakers to the Middle East. Founded in 1991 to serve the Arab American community in Ohio, AACCESS has organized three trips to the region for Dennis Kucinich, the former Democratic congressman from Ohio, between 2006 and 2011; Khawam said the group did the same for Gabbard, a two-term Democratic congresswoman from Hawaii, because of her expressed interest in the region.

Congresswoman Gabbard had a position on whats taking place in Syria, and about regime change, and these sort of things, Khawam, a Lebanese health-care consultant, told me in an interview. So we thought that would be most likely very helpful for her to see things on the ground similar to what we did with Congressman Kucinich.

I havent seen the evidence, just people saying it was Assad, and considering what the US did to Iraq AND Libya, is it REALLY being Assads bitch to wonder if maybe it was happening again? Answer honestly.

Consider that Assad gained literally nothing from the attacks, except more world scrutiny. Is that almost WIFOM? Kinda, yeah.

But her stated stance has always been anti-regime change, so sticking to her guns is different than literally going hey the money is good so who cares?
---

TheRock1525 posted...

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

Im not missing that part, actually, if youd take a second to read everything around Tulsi meet Assad, you might pick up on the distinction youre missing:

War and regime change doesnt work.

Not the same thing as lets continue to give weapons and support to this country.

CNN's Wolf Blitzer asked Gabbard if she didn't believe the President, the secretary of state and Pentagon officials, all of whom came to the same conclusion: that Assad's regime was responsible. Gabbard mentioned the previous invasion of Iraq, and the intelligence that suggested Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, which turned out to be false. "So, yes, I'm skeptical," she said.

She's not arguing regime change is bad, she's saying she's skeptical it was Assad.

Put it this way: are YOU skeptical it was Assad?

I think its right to not IMMEDIATELY and BLINDLY believe our intelligence. We have motive to lie.

But when you examine the circumstances of the attack, the evidence presented by multiple parties, and the disgusting nature of the counter-narrative conspiracy theories, it becomes pretty clear that Trump had that one right at least as far as blame goes.
---

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

Consider that Assad gained literally nothing from the attacks, except more world scrutiny.

This is not true. He gained control of the city from the rebels
---

I originally said that he wouldnt from regular ordinance but cut it out because it seemed too wordy and speculative.
---

Like the only alternate interpretation anyone has offered is that the attack was literally faked entirely by the White Hats as part of the Zionist globalist conspiracy to keep the war machine turning.

If Alex Jones is the only other person presenting an alternate scenario and that scenario also happens to be bigoted, color me skeptical
---

Even if Assad DID do it, her not supporting war in Syria is not the same thing as Trump openly supporting Saudi Arabia for arms deal money.

Its just not.
---

Yinz argue over the stupidest shit.
---

The point is that both parties use wishy-washy "maybe they did, maybe they didn't" to justify their positions.

It'd be a lot more reasonable if you just took Eddv's more accurate stance of the situation. No politician is flawless. Not even close. You're a Bernie guy but he was absolutely terrible on gun policy.
---

all politicians are bad

Saying yinz is bad.

That's not a thing humans do.
---

Debating about international relations and intelligence findings in a politics topic is stupid I guess
---