Convinced yet?

[edwardmurphy]

Your posts are making ablecainsbrother's posts seem reasonable by comparison.

Yet again, what did I say that wasn't true?

Trump sought foreign help investigating the Bidens? That's 100% true.

There's no evidence to support Trump's claims about the Bidens? That's 100% true.

There's a lot of evidence disputing Trump's claims about the Biens? That's 100% true.

There's mounting evidence that Trump sought an illegal quid pro quo? That's 100% true. Another whistleblower came forward this morning.

The most scandal-plagued Administration since Harding? That's a judgement call, but it would be ludicrous to deny that Trump's had a lot of major scandals.

It's fascist to call for Trump's election opponents, political rivals, and critics in the media to be imprisoned, even though none of them have been charged with a crime? Are you saying that it's not? How would you describe it?

Where, specifically, am I being hyperbolic?

Where, specifically, am I wrong?

It's safe and easy to respond to everything with sarcastic one-liners and emoticons, but I think you can do better.

[Fliegender]

Your posts are making ablecainsbrother's posts seem reasonable by comparison.

Yet again, what did I say that wasn't true?
...

Yeah...it doesn’t really matter that what you wrote is true or not. Football hooligans don’t care about facts or good behavior ; ideological hooligans won’t care either. It’s the team that matters. You’re on the wrong team, period.

So you’re wrong by association.

If you need more insight, just ask. I’m always here.

[Kurieuo]

Are you seriously calling RickD a hooligan?

hooligan
/ˈhuːlɪɡ(ə)n/
Learn to pronounce
noun
a violent young troublemaker, typically one of a gang.
"a drunken hooligan"
synonyms: hoodlum, thug, lout, delinquent, tearaway, vandal, ruffian, rowdy, troublemaker; larrikin; informaltough, rough, bruiser, roughneck; informalyob, yobbo, bovver boy, lager lout, chav, hoodie; informalkeelie, ned; informalroughie, hoon
"the violence was caused by football hooligans"

May as well just call him a facist and nazi.

[RickD]

Are you seriously calling RickD a hooligan?

hooligan
/ˈhuːlɪɡ(ə)n/
Learn to pronounce
noun
a violent young troublemaker, typically one of a gang.
"a drunken hooligan"
synonyms: hoodlum, thug, lout, delinquent, tearaway, vandal, ruffian, rowdy, troublemaker; larrikin; informaltough, rough, bruiser, roughneck; informalyob, yobbo, bovver boy, lager lout, chav, hoodie; informalkeelie, ned; informalroughie, hoon
"the violence was caused by football hooligans"

May as well just call him a facist and nazi.

At Furstentum Liechtenstein's...er...Fligender's advanced age, I guess he'd consider me young.

And I did vote for Trump, so I must be a facist and Nazi.

[Kurieuo]

All of the fake media hoopla - an intentional distraction. All the people involved should be arrested and sent to prison.

It's alarming that you and Abe always seem to want the opposition arrested. Lock her up (even though she's never been charged with a crime), arrest him for treason (even though he did nothing illegal), send them all to prison (for reporting things that the President did and said)...

You sound like a fascist. That's not hyperbole. You literally sound like a fascist. The Great Leader can do no wrong, no amount of evidence will ever prove otherwise, and all who criticize him should be rounded up and sent to prison.

Really Ed? Facist? Come on. Not everyone believes the US powers that were (and be) are innocent angels. Just because prosecutions haven't taken place, the matters are extremely complex and delicate to say the least. And if what Blessed believes is true, it's far from being facist, but rather protecting freedoms of those around the world from US neo-imperialism.

Blessed has also been critical of Trump re: US inverventionism, so then... why not your precious Hillary who voted for invading Iraq, etc and was a strong proponent and bombing campaigns that destroyed millions of lives across the middle east, Iraq, Libya, Syria, Yemen? What of Obama's dronings? Such interventions have have literally taken and ruined the lives of millions.

Rather than trying to attack Trump and put down anyone who'd vote him, Democrats should focus on producing a real alternative. There are a couple there who are able to break down and unite people on both sides of the Dem/Rep line. They actually look to the future, inspire hope and actually have some interesting and refreshing policies. But certain narcissistic dinosaurs in the Democratic party won't let them get a foot in, because such are competition to their own power.

Take Tulsi for example. I see her as a breath of fresh air in the Democratic party. There is a reason why Tulsi Gabbard appeals to people on both sides. It's interesting the media attempts to portray her as right-wing for resisting true US facism that has wreaked havoc in the middle east under the pretense of national security. Meddling has only led to the killing of literally millions of people (including children), cultivated anti-US and Israel hatred, and sprung up groups like ISIS, all of which worsens national security (which then calls for more and more intervention).

Democrats should focus on their own policies, presenting a REAL alternative rather than trying to pull the rug out from Trump and insult anyone who'd vote his way. The number 1 reason Democrats will lose in 2020 isn't the because of people blindly voting, or that they're all facists. It's because Democrats failed to deliver an alternative with any substantial policy beyond no Trumpism.

You sound like you're yearning for a strongman to put us liberals in our place, shut down the lügenpresse, and protect you from change. That's insane.

"Us liberals", who what? You? I wouldn't call you all "liberal". Liberals wouldn't go on witchhunts and label people facists for disagreeing. They'd live and let live. I don't see many Dems doing that, not since Trump's 2016 victory.

[edwardmurphy]

And I did vote for Trump, so I must be a facist and Nazi.

That's really dishonest, Rick. You know that that's not what I said and not what I meant.

Again, if it's not fascistic to call for Trump's election opponents, political rivals, and critics in the media to be rounded up and imprisoned for opposing and/or criticizing the President then how would you describe it?

When in the history of the United States has it ever been a crime to criticize the President?

When has it ever been illegal to oppose the ruling party?

When in the entire history of the United States of America has it ever been acceptable for the President to call for the arrest of those who criticize him and oppose him politically?

[Kurieuo]

Are you seriously calling RickD a hooligan?

hooligan
/ˈhuːlɪɡ(ə)n/
Learn to pronounce
noun
a violent young troublemaker, typically one of a gang.
"a drunken hooligan"
synonyms: hoodlum, thug, lout, delinquent, tearaway, vandal, ruffian, rowdy, troublemaker; larrikin; informaltough, rough, bruiser, roughneck; informalyob, yobbo, bovver boy, lager lout, chav, hoodie; informalkeelie, ned; informalroughie, hoon
"the violence was caused by football hooligans"

May as well just call him a facist and nazi.

At Furstentum Liechtenstein's...er...Fligender's advanced age, I guess he'd consider me young.

And I did vote for Trump, so I must be a facist and Nazi.

Ahh, hi FL. Such a snooty comment now makes sense.

[RickD]

RickD wrote:
And I did vote for Trump, so I must be a facist and Nazi.

Ed wrote:
That's really dishonest, Rick. You know that that's not what I said and not what I meant.

Relax my friend. I wasn't saying you said that. It was a joke towards Kurieuo. Those who voted for Trump have been called racists and fascists.

[Kurieuo]

RickD wrote:
And I did vote for Trump, so I must be a facist and Nazi.

Ed wrote:
That's really dishonest, Rick. You know that that's not what I said and not what I meant.

Relax my friend. I wasn't saying you said that. It was a joke towards Kurieuo. Those who voted for Trump have been called racists and fascists.

No Rick. You are still really dishonest. Anyone that claims to be Christian and yet votes Trump, they've got to be.

[edwardmurphy]

Dishonest, K. I'm very critical of Trump, but I don't call him and his supporters fascist for every little thing.

That said, "fascist" is probably the wrong word. It's too specific. Trump borrows heavily from Joseph Goebbels' playbook, but Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Noriega, Hussein, Gaddafi, Pinochet, Duvalier, and a hundred others used pretty much the same gameplan. Trump's constant lies (and his refusals to ever retract them), his insistence that the media is "the enemy of the people," and his threats to have his political opponents arrested for opposing him may not be specifically fascist, but they reek of nascent totalitarianism.

In Australia is it normal for the Prime Minister to threaten to have his political opponents arrested for criticizing him?

They'd live and let live. I don't see many Dems doing that, not since Trump's 2016 victory.

Comments like this baffle me.

First off, after the way the Republicans behaved from the minute that Barack Obama was nominated until the day he left office, the hypocrisy of that statement is absolutely staggering. Trump literally led the Birthers. For a lot of voters Trump is the right wing's revenge on us for electing Obama. Based on all evidence that I've seen a lot of Trump's supporters literally hate us for being liberals.

Second, I'm all for living and letting others live, except that my political opponents have no sincere interest in following that philosophy. For example, if it was up to the right there would be no marriage equality. So a better philosophy might be "Live and let live until your manner of living conflicts with my religious views, at which point I'm going to lobby the government to force you to do things my way and cry persecution if I lose." Again, the hypocrisy is something to behold.

Third, winning the Electoral College doesn't mean that Trump gets to be King and do whatever he wants with no pushback. You talk about us (meaning liberals and/or Democrats) opposing Trump as if we do it out of mean-spirited pettiness. That's not the case. The fact is that we liked many of the things that Trump has destroyed, and we want to protect the things that he plans to destroy next. One of those things is the environment. Another is the economy. A third is our standing as a world leader. A fourth is our democracy. Trump's behavior threatens them all, so we're fighting back.

[RickD]

Libs don't like Trump because he's a milquetoast.

[Fliegender]

Are you seriously calling RickD a hooligan?

hooligan
/ˈhuːlɪɡ(ə)n/
Learn to pronounce
noun
a violent young troublemaker, typically one of a gang.
"a drunken hooligan"
synonyms: hoodlum, thug, lout, delinquent, tearaway, vandal, ruffian, rowdy, troublemaker; larrikin; informaltough, rough, bruiser, roughneck; informalyob, yobbo, bovver boy, lager lout, chav, hoodie; informalkeelie, ned; informalroughie, hoon
"the violence was caused by football hooligans"

May as well just call him a facist and nazi.

I wasn’t talking about RicketyD. I was referring to Trumpophiles who turn a blind eye to His Imperial Majesty’s shenanigans because He satisfies the some aspects of the “Christian” agenda.

[edwardmurphy]

So Mick Mulvaney went on TV and flat out said that Trump withheld aid money that Congress allocated for Ukraine because he wanted the Ukrainians to investigate the ridiculous conspiracy theory that for some reason Hillary Clinton's email servers are in the Ukraine. He later claimed that his comments were taken out of context, but the whole thing is on video. I watched it, and no, they absolutely weren't. Trump extorted an investigation of Hunter Biden and a fever swamp Clinton server conspiracy theory by withholding money allocated to help the Ukrainians defend themselves from Russian encroachment. There's plenty of circumstantial evidence, and Mick Mulvaney confirmed it.

BTW, last time I mentioned circumstantial evidence it was treated as somehow illegitimate. It's not.

circumstantial evidence

Evidence that tends to prove a fact by proving other events or circumstances which afford a basis for a reasonable inference of the occurrence of the fact at issue

So far we have the sudden decision to withhold money that Congress allocated to Ukraine, the phone conversation in which Trump seems to make the release of said money contingent on an investigation of his chief political rival's son, a bunch of texts about the matter from Rudy Giuliani and members of Trump's diplomatic team that further support the extortion narrative, testimony from a number of professional diplomats that Rudy Giuliani was running a shadow foreign policy aimed specifically at using American foreign policy as a tool to help Trump's reelection campaign, and most likely some stuff I've forgotten. That's all circumstantial evidence. None of the individual pieces is conclusive proof that Trump withheld aid in order to extort foreign help in a domestic election, but collectively it's starting to look pretty damning. Oh, and he stood on the White House lawn and asked China to investigate Hunter Biden, so there's more evidence that that's the kind of thing he'd do. And there's more coming.

Plus Mulvaney just admitted it on live TV and told us to just get over it. Anybody who remains unconvinced is probably inconvincible...

In other flagrantly unconstitutional corruption news, Mulvaney also said that next year's G7 conference will be held at his Trump Doral golf resort. I guess the President is free to do whatever the [love] he wants, Constitution be damned. So much for the GOP caring about the rule of law.

Ged, I acknowledge that Lisa Murkowski says the decision was inappropriate, but something this flagrantly unconstitutional should result in instant, universal repudiation from the whole Congress, and the GOP has been nearly silent.

[Stu]

Dishonest, K. I'm very critical of Trump, but I don't call him and his supporters fascist for every little thing.

That said, "fascist" is probably the wrong word. It's too specific. Trump borrows heavily from Joseph Goebbels' playbook, but Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Noriega, Hussein, Gaddafi, Pinochet, Duvalier, and a hundred others used pretty much the same gameplan. Trump's constant lies (and his refusals to ever retract them), his insistence that the media is "the enemy of the people," and his threats to have his political opponents arrested for opposing him may not be specifically fascist, but they reek of nascent totalitarianism.

And you really expect people to take you seriously when you spout nonsensical drivel like this. Nascent totalitarianism, Lenin, Stalin, frikken Mao?
That's complete and utter leftist loony think. Full on drunk on the kool-aid. Full retard stuff right there.

The Democrats have you by the b@lls and you have bought into their propaganda hook, line and sinker. But even they don't go that far, wow you certainly have outdone yourself Wake up man, you've lost the plot, you've gone over the edge and are living in CNN propaganda land where everything is coloured blue and Hillary is the real president.

[edwardmurphy]

Stu, it's easy to call me names and dismiss what I say because I said it. It's a lot harder to grow a pair and take a crack at answering difficult questions. Let's see if you're up to it.

1) If it's not authoritarian to call for Trump's election opponents, political rivals, and critics in the media to be rounded up and imprisoned for opposing and/or criticizing the President then how would you describe it?

2) When in the history of the United States has it ever been a crime to criticize the President?

3) When has it ever been illegal to oppose the ruling party?

4) When in the entire history of the United States of America has it ever been acceptable for the President to call for the arrest of those who criticize him and oppose him politically?

Man up, Liddle' Stu.