Elections 9/10 debate thread!

Who won the debate

  • Total voters
    294
Hog-train said:
They got underlings for minor bullshit. Far cry from the headlines we were getting for MONTHS "Trump colluded with Russia to hack the election!!"

Don't lie and tell me we weren't getting that story in the press over and over for months on end. Yet the FBI couldn't find a shred of evidence he actually colluded to steal the election.

Common sense would tell you it was a ridiculous reach to begin with. Why in the world would Russia NEED Trump's "help" to hack the DNC servers or do a Facebook disinformation campaign? They were already doing their destabilization and disinformation shit for years already without him.



I never claimed he was innocent of the hush money case. I said he was clearly guilty multiple times by now.

I'm saying they were really reaching because what he got convicted of was "falsifying business records." That's a misdemeanor.

Bragg used a novel, never been used legal strategy to reclassify them so it's a felony. This was detailed at length in the Hush Money thread in the War Room so I won't expound on it here.
Click to expand...
The FBI didn't find any thing, you mean the head of the NY FBI office that plead guilty to working for Russia? Weird the FBI corrupted by Russians didn't find any Russian collusion. Oh wait, that's not right either. They did find Russian and trump involvement, even the Republican lead investigation found the same, but Barr ran interference on the Mueller report. In the end 34 people faced some pretty serious charges. Rick Gates, Paul Manafort ring any bells?
 
AWilder said:
The FBI didn't find any thing, you mean the head of the NY FBI office that plead guilty to working for Russia? Weird the FBI corrupted by Russians didn't find any Russian collusion. Oh wait, that's not right either.
Click to expand...

James Comey and Mueller's investigations had nothing to do with Charles McGonigal. McGonigal was conspiring with a Russian billionaire to bypass US sanctions.

Mueller investigated for 22 months under heavy media scrutiny and found they did not "conspire or coordinate with the Russian government in its election interference activities." Pretty clear cut.

AWilder said:
They did find Russian and trump involvement, even the Republican lead investigation found the same, but Barr ran interference on the Mueller report. In the end 34 people faced some pretty serious charges. Rick Gates, Paul Manafort ring any bells?
Click to expand...

Yet they still found there was no Trump-Russia collusion to hack or steal the election. That's the claim that was echoed literally every day for over a year. On talk shows like the View, on NBC, ABC, CNN, everywhere. That's the simple truth of the matter. There's no evidence that happened.

There's obvious Russian interference in the election and corruption happening. Far cry from "ZOMG Trump colluded with Russia to steal the election!"
 
Last edited:
Mr Holmes said:
@Hog-train knocking down the shit libs and all they can do is whine and accuse him of being a Trumper.
<{anton}>
Click to expand...

Dude I ain't even voting for Trump - for completely different reasons. He's done a million things wrong.

But I have to call a spade a spade on the other side too. People acting like their "side" never does anything wrong or fucked up.

This rape case was clearly complete bullshit too, but people are so quick to just say "Yea yea he's a rapist" with literally almost no evidence - just because they don't like him.

That kind of snap judgment is super dangerous.
 
Last edited:
brothir said:
I have no idea why "15 wars, 0 assassination attempts" divided amongst 4 Presidents with wildly different ideologies, most of whom had 2 terms, compared to "0 wars, 1 assassination attempt" from 1 President with 1 term so far is supposed to be meaningful.
Click to expand...
Plus 2 impeachments.
 
filthybliss said:
holmes is praying for you to join his maga apolegetic cult lol
Click to expand...
giphy.gif
 
idrankyourbeer's maid said:
View attachment 1062495
Click to expand...

Yeah yeah, that's a cute deflect.

I do find it curious how apparently Kamala wouldn't be able to "cuck NATO" like the big orange cuck Trump that you worship, and yet she smacked his ass around pillar to post in the debate, baiting him into every single trap, that he fell for like an idiot.
 
Hog-train said:
Dude he said it multiple times in multiple interviews. He campaigned on it.

You asked me where in the NY Times article did it say that. It's literally the first line right under the title.

"Alvin Bragg, the Manhattan D.A., campaigned as the best candidate to go after the former president. Now he finds himself leading Trump’s first prosecution — and perhaps the only one before the November election."






Bragg (and Letitia James too) both say they would "hold Trump accountable" during the campaign trail.

While campaigning, Bragg said: "I have investigated Trump and his children and held them accountable for their misconduct with the Trump Foundation. I also sued the Trump administration more than 100 times for the travel ban, the separation of children from their families at the border. So I know that work. I know how to follow the facts and hold people in power accountable."
Click to expand...

Again Bragg is saying the opposite of what you're claiming here. He's being intentionally vague by using phrases like "hold accountable" and hedging by saying he'll "follow the facts" so as to not to commit to prosecution only to get into office and realize he doesn't have a case he'd be comfortable going forward with.
Hog-train said:
He also said that he would continue with Vance's investigation and hold Trump "accountable by following the facts where they go."


Bragg continued to make frequent reference to his legal experience with the Trump family throughout the campaign.

There were no legal proceedings being taken against Trump when Bragg started saying this. Essentially, he campaigned on it.

He not only said it ion the campaign trail, but right after we won as well.

Click to expand...
Knowing that there was an existing investigation into Trump and that legal action against him by the Manhattan DA office was possible its perfectly legitimate to run on the idea that you have experience litigating Trump. That said he couched this with caveats and hedges his language very carefully so as so as to avoid committing to the idea that he's prosecute Trump before being able to see the case first hand.
 
Hog-train said:
This rape case was clearly complete bullshit too, but people are so quick to just say "Yea yea he's a rapist" with literally almost no evidence - just because they don't like him.

That kind of snap judgment is super dangerous.
Click to expand...
Totally.
When people say “he’s a rapist” or a “sexual predator”… referring to the grab em by the pussy guy, who has provided us with decades of public misogyny, who’s known for banging porn stars while his wife was home with their newborn, and who himself claims he liked peeking in on the teen Ms America changing room, and who is none other than Mr. John Doe 174 in the Epstein saga, one of Jeffrey’s besties, and who was actually called a rapist by the judge after losing a sexual battery and defamation litigation.. when people say those things… I always say, invariably, “wtf? stop making snap judgements. It’s dangerous”. But, I mean, I can’t stand the guy, don’t get me wrong, I just think we shouldn’t be so hasty. At least let him be president a few more times so you can make an informed judgement.
 
woodguyatl said:
If he loses this election he will still run again. His base is so loyal that they will get him through the primaries.
Click to expand...
Nope that’s not how it works because another losss weakens the perception…..I watched the debate 5 times in a row there’s things I caught each time ……while its 3 on 1 no doubt he got killed with the fact checks even if he had jus a few of his they weren’t exactly important enough .
 
LMP said:
Wonder how much Russia has to pay for that opinion?
Click to expand...
If Trump wore that Irish hat and wig he’d win ..but he’s going to lose this one ..I’ve never got a president election wrong ( I don’t count the Al Gore one bc it was stolen from that guys brother in Florida no uprising happened there though ) so we’ll see ? Lol
 
  • Like
Reactions: LMP
Islam Imamate said:
Again Bragg is saying the opposite of what you're claiming here. He's being intentionally vague by using phrases like "hold accountable" and hedging by saying he'll "follow the facts" so as to not to commit to prosecution only to get into office and realize he doesn't have a case he'd be comfortable going forward with.
Click to expand...

You're intentionally misreading what he's saying. It's pretty obvious what he intended to do and was signaling he was going to do.

You're acting like this is some fringe belief when all the major media outlets like the NY Times, Washington Post, etc all basically stated that's what he was doing.

Islam Imamate said:
Knowing that there was an existing investigation into Trump and that legal action against him by the Manhattan DA office was possible its perfectly legitimate to run on the idea that you have experience litigating Trump. That said he couched this with caveats and hedges his language very carefully so as so as to avoid committing to the idea that he's prosecute Trump before being able to see the case first hand.
Click to expand...

Literally the first question in the video interview below.

Radio host: Whoever has this job, are they going to convict Donald Trump?

Alvin Bragg: Look... that is the #1 issue, I'm the candidate in the race who has the experience with Donald Trump. We sued the Trump administration over 100 times...

And that's only the first few seconds. Watch the other lines in the video. He said similar stuff multiple times.

Uhmm pretty fucking clear cut he's campaigning on going after Trump dude. That's my point. Bragg CAMPAIGNED on getting Trump.

 
Last edited:
Hog-train said:
Dude I ain't even voting for Trump - for completely different reasons. He's done a million things wrong.

But I have to call a spade a spade on the other side too. People acting like their "side" never does anything wrong or fucked up.

This rape case was clearly complete bullshit too, but people are so quick to just say "Yea yea he's a rapist" with literally almost no evidence - just because they don't like him.

That kind of snap judgment is super dangerous.
Click to expand...
Yeah but you’re a trumper MAGAT and now they hate you.
 
sickc0d3r said:
Totally.
When people say “he’s a rapist” or a “sexual predator”… referring to the grab em by the pussy guy, who has provided us with decades of public misogyny, who’s known for banging porn stars while his wife was home with their newborn, and who himself claims he liked peeking in on the teen Ms America changing room, and who is none other than Mr. John Doe 174 in the Epstein saga, one of Jeffrey’s besties, and who was actually called a rapist by the judge after losing a sexual battery and defamation litigation.. when people say those things… I always say, invariably, “wtf? stop making snap judgements. It’s dangerous”. But, I mean, I can’t stand the guy, don’t get me wrong, I just think we shouldn’t be so hasty. At least let him be president a few more times so you can make an informed judgement.
Click to expand...

Apparently requiring EVIDENCE for crimes makes me some weirdo. I''m in the minority for requiring proof.

Talking shit on Access Hollywood - you're a rapist.

Cheating on your wife - you're a rapist.

Bang a porn star - you're a rapist.

Even though the jury itself ruled he didn't actually rape.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
1,249,528
Messages
56,325,953
Members
175,165
Latest member
bradley_barcocacola

Share this page

Back
Top