Police: please don’t sell milkshakes to anti-fascists

[Draco Dracul]

It's so stupid. What a world, what a world, what a world, eh?

You are the one building it...

Words can incite violence. Words can be cruel. I think they can be inherently hateful. But they are not violent unless they're egging on violence. What do you think?

Throwing shit at someone and everyone cheering, what you guys want is pretty much a green light to fuck with someone...

And can lead to worse...

Yes, it could escalate to us playing vuvuzelas at them, or the infamous "Is this bugging you? I'm not touching you!"

I am gonna show the media dominance of your side, for a millionth time?

No, I really can't get the milkshake, because as I said, the mcdonalds nearest the protest stopped selling them. Weren't you even reading/listening?

You cannot have one delivered from the Internet?

Oh look at mister rich guy here, mr fancy-pants who can afford the extra bux for uber eats! =U Law dee daw! I'm off the play the grand piano!

Reactionary is a retarderd word and should be retired.

I am sure Obama could take some yelling but your side still got upset over you lie.

Now imagine if Joe the Plumber threw a milkshake at him...

Obama would have laughed it off, because being able to laugh off or otherwise endure humiliation or other indignities is only way to make it anywhere as a black politician in the US.

Do you really think Obama was treated worse by the press and entertainment industry than Trump? Seriously?

In absolute terms the media has been more negative on Trump, but proportionately the media was much harsher on Obama as he was neither as gaff prone, openly corrupt, or prone to actively attacking our democratic institutions.

[BridgeConsoleMasher]

Reactionary is a retarderd word and should be retired.

What? Why? It defines a potential general political idea of restoring a previous state of society, so it's not just a cheap label.

I mean, Google defines it pretty directly as a conservative person opposed to liberal reform lol. Not really any pejorative inclination or anything.

It's kinda nice stumbling upon that a few months ago as I've never considered liberalism and conservatism as mutually exclusive, but that separates things pretty nicely there.

Conservatives sure like to use terms that they have come up with about Liberals and anyone who doesn't agree with them but want to have actual word that discribe them banned and cry how it's "retarded word". It would be hilarious if it wasn't same time so sad.

Perhaps, though this kind of thing can be applied to the left in cases as well. When that happens, I feel obliged to articulate nuanced differences, maybe to the point where the issue is transformed inside out.

[Darth Wedgius]

It's so stupid. What a world, what a world, what a world, eh?

You are the one building it...

Words can incite violence. Words can be cruel. I think they can be inherently hateful. But they are not violent unless they're egging on violence. What do you think?

Throwing shit at someone and everyone cheering, what you guys want is pretty much a green light to fuck with someone...

And can lead to worse...

Yes, it could escalate to us playing vuvuzelas at them, or the infamous "Is this bugging you? I'm not touching you!"

I am gonna show the media dominance of your side, for a millionth time?

No, I really can't get the milkshake, because as I said, the mcdonalds nearest the protest stopped selling them. Weren't you even reading/listening?

You cannot have one delivered from the Internet?

Oh look at mister rich guy here, mr fancy-pants who can afford the extra bux for uber eats! =U Law dee daw! I'm off the play the grand piano!

Reactionary is a retarderd word and should be retired.

I am sure Obama could take some yelling but your side still got upset over you lie.

Now imagine if Joe the Plumber threw a milkshake at him...

Obama would have laughed it off, because being able to laugh off or otherwise endure humiliation or other indignities is only way to make it anywhere as a black politician in the US.

Do you really think Obama was treated worse by the press and entertainment industry than Trump? Seriously?

In absolute terms the media has been more negative on Trump, but proportionately the media was much harsher on Obama as he was neither as gaff prone, openly corrupt, or prone to actively attacking our democratic institutions.

I'll give you the gaffes, but not the openly corrupt or prone to actively attacking our democratic institutions. I don't know where you get the openly corrupt at all, unless you're still holding onto Russian conspiracy theories. The attacking our democratic institutions bit I assume is his attacks on the press, and for that I'd like to present the Russian conspiracy theories or Jim Acosta. Criticizing something that deserves criticism is entirely appropriate.

[Draco Dracul]

I'll give you the gaffes, but not the openly corrupt or prone to actively attacking our democratic institutions. I don't know where you get the openly corrupt at all, unless you're still holding onto Russian conspiracy theories. The attacking our democratic institutions bit I assume is his attacks on the press, and for that I'd like to present the Russian conspiracy theories or Jim Acosta. Criticizing something that deserves criticism is entirely appropriate.

Literally the only reason he hasn't been brought up on Obstruction of Justice charges is that DoJ policy doesn't allow the indictment of the sitting president (the declassified portions of the Mueller report say they will exonerating him if possible and proceed to not exonerate him), he's been using his position as president to enrich himself via his hotels, and has a record number indited administration and campaign officials.

In the prelude to his presidency he implied he would only accept the outcome of the election if he won, and has demanded extra time on his presidency due to the investigation. The Russian conspiracy can't really be used as a counter point because it's still under active investigation, and the public conclusion is that if their was no coordination between Russian officials and the Trump Campaign, it was solely due to incompetence on the part of the latter party.

[Darth Wedgius]

I'll give you the gaffes, but not the openly corrupt or prone to actively attacking our democratic institutions. I don't know where you get the openly corrupt at all, unless you're still holding onto Russian conspiracy theories. The attacking our democratic institutions bit I assume is his attacks on the press, and for that I'd like to present the Russian conspiracy theories or Jim Acosta. Criticizing something that deserves criticism is entirely appropriate.

Literally the only reason he hasn't been brought up on Obstruction of Justice charges is that DoJ policy doesn't allow the indictment of the sitting president (the declassified portions of the Mueller report say they will exonerating him if possible and proceed to not exonerate him), he's been using his position as president to enrich himself via his hotels, and has a record number indited administration and campaign officials.

In the prelude to his presidency he implied he would only accept the outcome of the election if he won, and has demanded extra time on his presidency due to the investigation. The Russian conspiracy can't really be used as a counter point because it's still under active investigation, and the public conclusion is that if their was no coordination between Russian officials and the Trump Campaign, it was solely due to incompetence on the part of the latter party.

I fixed that for you!

What evidence do you have that Trump impeded the investigation unlawfully? Sure, he fired the FBI director, but he has the right and duty to do that if the thinks the director is compromised. You can say what he really wanted to do, but you're not a telepath.

Trump implied that people might not accept his loss. I don't recall saying that he wouldn't accept it.

He's made money on hotels, which he did before the presidency as well. What solid evidence do you have that he's exchanged favors for any of that during his term in office?

[Mecha82]

Making changes to what other person said to match your own views I see. That's low and disrespectful towards other members of this forum. But I guess political extremist and Trump supporters aren't above doing things like that. Then again it was pro-Trump troll that got James Gunn fired over anti-Trump opinions by bringing up bad joke that Gunn had made long time ago. At end luckily justice prevailed in that situation and James Gunn was rehired. At least now I don't feel about ignoring certain alt right people.

[Karha of Honor]

Making changes to what other person said to match your own views I see. That's low and disrespectful towards other members of this forum. But I guess political extremist and Trump supporters aren't above doing things like that. Then again it was pro-Trump troll that got James Gunn fired over anti-Trump opinions by bringing up bad joke that Gunn had made long time ago. At end luckily justice prevailed in that situation and James Gunn was rehired. At least now I don't feel about ignoring certain alt right people.

The outcome was ideal for me. Gunn himself advocated for some dumbass witch hunts.

[Draco Dracul]

I'll give you the gaffes, but not the openly corrupt or prone to actively attacking our democratic institutions. I don't know where you get the openly corrupt at all, unless you're still holding onto Russian conspiracy theories. The attacking our democratic institutions bit I assume is his attacks on the press, and for that I'd like to present the Russian conspiracy theories or Jim Acosta. Criticizing something that deserves criticism is entirely appropriate.

Literally the only reason he hasn't been brought up on Obstruction of Justice charges is that DoJ policy doesn't allow the indictment of the sitting president (the declassified portions of the Mueller report say they will exonerating him if possible and proceed to not exonerate him), he's been using his position as president to enrich himself via his hotels, and has a record number indited administration and campaign officials.

In the prelude to his presidency he implied he would only accept the outcome of the election if he won, and has demanded extra time on his presidency due to the investigation. The Russian conspiracy can't really be used as a counter point because it's still under active investigation, and the public conclusion is that if their was no coordination between Russian officials and the Trump Campaign, it was solely due to incompetence on the part of the latter party.

1)I fixed that for you!

2)What evidence do you have that Trump impeded the investigation unlawfully? Sure, he fired the FBI director, but he has the right and duty to do that if the thinks the director is compromised. You can say what he really wanted to do, but you're not a telepath.

3) Trump implied that people might not accept his loss. I don't recall saying that he wouldn't accept it.

1)You didn't alter my statement at all.

2) I don't need to be a telepath as the Mueller report explicitly both says it will exonerate him of obstruction if able and explicitly does not exonerate him. The conclusion I have posited is in allignment with one held by over four hundred former Federal Prosecutors and DoJ officials: https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/na ... 24cf44d374

3) No when asked if he would accept the results of the election, he said he would if he won.

Making changes to what other person said to match your own views I see. That's low and disrespectful towards other members of this forum. But I guess political extremist and Trump supporters aren't above doing things like that. Then again it was pro-Trump troll that got James Gunn fired over anti-Trump opinions by bringing up bad joke that Gunn had made long time ago. At end luckily justice prevailed in that situation and James Gunn was rehired. At least now I don't feel about ignoring certain alt right people.

He couldn't even do that right. I've gone over it line by line and he hasn't changed a thing.

[Darth Wedgius]

I'll give you the gaffes, but not the openly corrupt or prone to actively attacking our democratic institutions. I don't know where you get the openly corrupt at all, unless you're still holding onto Russian conspiracy theories. The attacking our democratic institutions bit I assume is his attacks on the press, and for that I'd like to present the Russian conspiracy theories or Jim Acosta. Criticizing something that deserves criticism is entirely appropriate.

Literally the only reason he hasn't been brought up on Obstruction of Justice charges is that DoJ policy doesn't allow the indictment of the sitting president (the declassified portions of the Mueller report say they will exonerating him if possible and proceed to not exonerate him), he's been using his position as president to enrich himself via his hotels, and has a record number indited administration and campaign officials.

In the prelude to his presidency he implied he would only accept the outcome of the election if he won, and has demanded extra time on his presidency due to the investigation. The Russian conspiracy can't really be used as a counter point because it's still under active investigation, and the public conclusion is that if their was no coordination between Russian officials and the Trump Campaign, it was solely due to incompetence on the part of the latter party.

1)I fixed that for you!

2)What evidence do you have that Trump impeded the investigation unlawfully? Sure, he fired the FBI director, but he has the right and duty to do that if the thinks the director is compromised. You can say what he really wanted to do, but you're not a telepath.

3) Trump implied that people might not accept his loss. I don't recall saying that he wouldn't accept it.

1)You didn't alter my statement at all.

2) I don't need to be a telepath as the Mueller report explicitly both says it will exonerate him of obstruction if able and explicitly does not exonerate him. The conclusion I have posited is in allignment with one held by over four hundred former Federal Prosecutors and DoJ officials: https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/na ... 24cf44d374

3) No when asked if he would accept the results of the election, he said he would if he won.

Making changes to what other person said to match your own views I see. That's low and disrespectful towards other members of this forum. But I guess political extremist and Trump supporters aren't above doing things like that. Then again it was pro-Trump troll that got James Gunn fired over anti-Trump opinions by bringing up bad joke that Gunn had made long time ago. At end luckily justice prevailed in that situation and James Gunn was rehired. At least now I don't feel about ignoring certain alt right people.

He couldn't even do that right. I've gone over it line by line and he hasn't changed a thing.

You're right about 1.
2 is behind a paywall, but from I gather that's a lot of prosecutors saying he would have been charged. It's not the same as evidence that he's guilty.
3 isn't saying that he wouldn't accept the results if he lost.

Logic is a thing, you know.

[Draco Dracul]

I'll give you the gaffes, but not the openly corrupt or prone to actively attacking our democratic institutions. I don't know where you get the openly corrupt at all, unless you're still holding onto Russian conspiracy theories. The attacking our democratic institutions bit I assume is his attacks on the press, and for that I'd like to present the Russian conspiracy theories or Jim Acosta. Criticizing something that deserves criticism is entirely appropriate.

Literally the only reason he hasn't been brought up on Obstruction of Justice charges is that DoJ policy doesn't allow the indictment of the sitting president (the declassified portions of the Mueller report say they will exonerating him if possible and proceed to not exonerate him), he's been using his position as president to enrich himself via his hotels, and has a record number indited administration and campaign officials.

In the prelude to his presidency he implied he would only accept the outcome of the election if he won, and has demanded extra time on his presidency due to the investigation. The Russian conspiracy can't really be used as a counter point because it's still under active investigation, and the public conclusion is that if their was no coordination between Russian officials and the Trump Campaign, it was solely due to incompetence on the part of the latter party.

1)I fixed that for you!

2)What evidence do you have that Trump impeded the investigation unlawfully? Sure, he fired the FBI director, but he has the right and duty to do that if the thinks the director is compromised. You can say what he really wanted to do, but you're not a telepath.

3) Trump implied that people might not accept his loss. I don't recall saying that he wouldn't accept it.

1)You didn't alter my statement at all.

2) I don't need to be a telepath as the Mueller report explicitly both says it will exonerate him of obstruction if able and explicitly does not exonerate him. The conclusion I have posited is in allignment with one held by over four hundred former Federal Prosecutors and DoJ officials: https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/na ... 24cf44d374

3) No when asked if he would accept the results of the election, he said he would if he won.

Making changes to what other person said to match your own views I see. That's low and disrespectful towards other members of this forum. But I guess political extremist and Trump supporters aren't above doing things like that. Then again it was pro-Trump troll that got James Gunn fired over anti-Trump opinions by bringing up bad joke that Gunn had made long time ago. At end luckily justice prevailed in that situation and James Gunn was rehired. At least now I don't feel about ignoring certain alt right people.

He couldn't even do that right. I've gone over it line by line and he hasn't changed a thing.

You're right about 1.
2 is behind a paywall, but from I gather that's a lot of prosecutors saying he would have been charged. It's not the same as evidence that he's guilty.
3 isn't saying that he wouldn't accept the results if he lost.

Logic is a thing, you know.

2)As a rule prosecutors don't run cases they don't think they can win. This means they think his actions, like say publicly stating that he fired the director of the FBI for the purpose of ending the investigation, meet the definition of Obstruction of Justice.

3) It implies it. Because if you're not implying that, you answer yes.