By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
SpokenTruth said:

Is it really that hard for Trump's campaign and others to find a real person of color to support him?

Hiring white people to hoist up "Blacks for Trump" signs at rallies.

Some conservative websites are even photoshopping MAGA hats onto images of celebrities.

Some groups are even adding people of color as supporters that have openly stated they are not supporters....or even adding people that have been dead for 24 years.

Circled: Easy-E died in 1995.

I couldn't find statements of support for most of the others I recognize from that image.

Several of the them are just stock photos.

This article contained dozens of instances of fake supporters but they were eventually removed by Twitter and Facebook for being fake.

Or this gem.  Notice a trend?  Also...Bernie Castro.  They are really trying.

If support from blacks...and others...is really as great as they say, why the need to fake so much of it?

Or for his supporters to strawman the everloving hell out of his opponents. On top of the current Biden nonsense, we have people planting trolls to associate AOC with eating babies. Insane times we live in...



Around the Network

Guy on the left?

Has this man been investigated by Mueller?



Seth Meyers and the other US late-night hosts should pay Trump royalties for the hours and hours and hours of content he has provided them. But, this show is the best way to see US Presidential news on an almost daily basis.



I describe myself as a little dose of toxic masculinity.

Jumpin said:

Seth Meyers and the other US late-night hosts should pay Trump royalties for the hours and hours and hours of content he has provided them. But, this show is the best way to see US Presidential news on an almost daily basis.

I'm not sure how I originally missed this story, but that video pointed me to some reports from Tuesday involving Mike Pence:

https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-pence-ukraine-us-withhold-aid-corruption-probe-2019-10

A lot of defenses I have seen regarding the funding that was being withheld, was that Ukraine never even knew that the funding was being withheld. There are many reasons to believe this is false, but this is perhaps the most damning. Pence was reportedly instructed by Trump to inform the President of Ukraine directly that this funding was being withheld.

This is just one example of a quid pro quo in this whole ordeal. There are other things that Trump was holding back and offering to Ukraine in exchange for a public commitment to this investigation, but the funding is the one that has drawn the most attention, so this story is pretty darn important.

It also deeply implicates Pence in this ordeal, despite the fact that he has been attempting to distance himself from it as much as possible.





No quid pro quo.

Around the Network

Second accuser

https://www.cnn.com/2018/09/26/politics/who-is-deborah-ramirez/index.html

Third accuser

https://www.cnn.com/2018/09/26/politics/julie-swetnick-allegation-kavanaugh/index.html

Fourth...

They'll run out of fingers eventually, and then they won't be able to deny it!



SpokenTruth said:

If support from blacks...and others...is really as great as they say, why the need to fake so much of it?

This is about as cringe worthy as I have seen any campaign go to show a minority vote.  The problem isn't that Trump Campaign is doing this, its that its not remotely shocking that they are doing it.  How low have the standards come where openly lying like this from the Trump campaign is standard order of the day.



the-pi-guy said:
EricHiggin said:

Second accuser

https://www.cnn.com/2018/09/26/politics/who-is-deborah-ramirez/index.html

Third accuser

https://www.cnn.com/2018/09/26/politics/julie-swetnick-allegation-kavanaugh/index.html

Fourth...

They'll run out of fingers eventually, and then they won't be able to deny it!

Meaningless post.  

1.)  You're making assumptions of the validity of these claims against Kavanaugh.  

The facts are that neither of us knows what is the for sure actual truth.  Every one is going to point out what they consider evidence that proves or disproves the claim, but the fact is no one knows for sure.  

Using the unknown as evidence or comparisons doesn't work.

2.)  You're implying that there's a similarity between these claims and the whistle blower claims.  

Difference is, Trump broke the law on television. 

Shhhh, Let Eric hang himself on this one because unlike the Kavanaugh situation this one isn't remotely the same.  He continue to try to defend this cluster and not admit when Trump makes mistakes he probably should just be silent. 



the-pi-guy said:
Second whistle blower

https://www-m.cnn.com/2019/10/06/politics/second-whistleblower-trump-ukraine/index.html?utm_source=CNN-News-Alerts&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Lawyer+for+Ukraine+whistleblower+says+he+represents+second+whistleblower+on+Trump&r=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.reddit.com%2Fr%2Fpolitics%2Fcomments%2Fde3ger%2Fmegathread_second_whistleblower_comes_forward_in%2F&rm=1
the-pi-guy said:
EricHiggin said:

Second accuser

https://www.cnn.com/2018/09/26/politics/who-is-deborah-ramirez/index.html

Third accuser

https://www.cnn.com/2018/09/26/politics/julie-swetnick-allegation-kavanaugh/index.html

Fourth...

They'll run out of fingers eventually, and then they won't be able to deny it!

Meaningless post.  

1.)  You're making assumptions of the validity of these claims against Kavanaugh.  

The facts are that neither of us knows what is the for sure actual truth.  Every one is going to point out what they consider evidence that proves or disproves the claim, but the fact is no one knows for sure.  

Using the unknown as evidence or comparisons doesn't work.

2.)  You're implying that there's a similarity between these claims and the whistle blower claims.  

Difference is, Trump broke the law on television. 

Where did I make assumptions other than more evidence tends to lead to more people believing something?

I think you mean the difference is Trump broke the world and everything about it the second he was conceived.

I also think you missed a few, or more, differences, but hey, why bother when you can go straight to the 'Trump card'?



the-pi-guy said:
EricHiggin said:

Where did I make assumptions other than more evidence tends to lead to more people believing something?

I think you mean the difference is Trump broke the world and everything about it the second he was conceived.

I also think you missed a few, or more, differences, but hey, why bother when you can go straight to the 'Trump card'?

>Where did I make assumptions other than more evidence tends to lead to more people believing something?

You made some assumption to come to the conclusion that the Kavanaugh case was somehow relevant to the Trump case.

>I think you mean the difference is Trump broke the world and everything about it the second he was conceived.

You're the one who said it.

I know you think that liberals/leftists have an irrational undying hatred for Trump's existence, but that's not the case for vast majority people.  And you're not going to be discussing honestly if you think that anyone here feels that way.  

When Trump got elected, I wanted him to do good for the country or at the very least do nothing bad.  

You're the one who said it, is exactly right. Why do you point to Trump? Why not CNN who was sourced?

I think instead of "I know you think", you meant, 'I think, that you think'. Lefties, not typical liberals, said to be more libertarian in today's world I guess.

That sounds nice on the surface, but if you happened to hate everything he stands for, or him personally, then it don't mean much. It would've been like saying, 'I wish Obama would do good for the country', which would have meant implementing some more conservative policies, to a conservative, even though it was clear that was highly unlikely to happen. 'If only I could win the lottery', is not a valid excuse for unpaid bills.