Uncle Joe

[MICHHAWK]

i don't want uncle joe as my next president any less than i don't want dt. i am more than ready to move on from these two.

[twocoach]

If her inappropriate handling of classified documents wasn't a big deal and Biden's inappropriate handling of classified documents is not a big deal, why is it a big deal for Trump? It is a valid question to anyone who isn't just trying to make sure that the will of the people isn't fulfilled in 2024.

If you actually cared, there have been numerous articles written about this very subject and explained in great detail.

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/how-t ... and-bidens

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/donald- ... =100011485

https://www.tampabay.com/news/2023/06/1 ... s-compare/

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-64230040

But I doubt you'll actually read them and take any of it seriously since it doesn't align with your opinion that they are the same.

Any from sources that aren't Soros-backed/globalist publications with an axe to grind? Asking for a friend.

Feel free to provide some sort of evidence that the BBC or PBS is backed by George Soros or has any sort of axe to grind with anyone involved in this discussion. Asking for myself.

[JKLivin]

Ah, so a different guy who has never spoken a word to the actual person involved and who is basing his opinion off of some TV interviews and not clouding his opinion with his own political viewpoints I am sure... Got it.

I don't know what your area of expertise is, but when you spend 50 hours a week interviewing people to screen for those disorders, you learn to spot things pretty quick.

I am an analyst, which means I look at data and decide whether it is relevant and trustworthy or whether it is irrelevant and coincidental. You're taking a 10 second video of a guy tripping over a complicated foreign name he has probably never seen before and using it to determine that he has advanced dementia. Maybe you should go look up the characteristics of someone with late stage dementia and realize you're just talking out of your ass.

Well, since I was referring to a colleague’s observations and not my own . . . Nevermind. As you were.

[JKLivin]

If you actually cared, there have been numerous articles written about this very subject and explained in great detail.

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/how-t ... and-bidens

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/donald- ... =100011485

https://www.tampabay.com/news/2023/06/1 ... s-compare/

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-64230040

But I doubt you'll actually read them and take any of it seriously since it doesn't align with your opinion that they are the same.

Any from sources that aren't Soros-backed/globalist publications with an axe to grind? Asking for a friend.

Feel free to provide some sort of evidence that the BBC or PBS is backed by George Soros or has any sort of axe to grind with anyone involved in this discussion. Asking for myself.

It’s widely known.

[KUTradition]

“they” say…

[twocoach]

Any from sources that aren't Soros-backed/globalist publications with an axe to grind? Asking for a friend.

Feel free to provide some sort of evidence that the BBC or PBS is backed by George Soros or has any sort of axe to grind with anyone involved in this discussion. Asking for myself.

It’s widely known.

Or it's just assumed when you don't like what you read...

[JKLivin]

Feel free to provide some sort of evidence that the BBC or PBS is backed by George Soros or has any sort of axe to grind with anyone involved in this discussion. Asking for myself.

It’s widely known.

Or it's just assumed when you don't like what you read...

You are free to assume what you will. Reality is not changed by your assumptions.

[twocoach]

It’s widely known.

Or it's just assumed when you don't like what you read...

You are free to assume what you will. Reality is not changed by your assumptions.

If it is so widely known, I am sure it would be easy to provide an actual source that proves your theory as fact.

Start with the BBC and show me ownership or backing by George Soros.

Pro tip: "Widely assumed" isn't the same as "widely known". One requires facts while the other doesn't.

[defixione]

George Soros is one of the biggest philanthropists on the planet and he has, in fact, given BBC money.

I remember when I was in graduate school I couldn't make a statement without backing it with at least one source. Now, anybody can say anything they want and it's taken as factual. What has happened?

[twocoach]

George Soros is one of the biggest philanthropists on the planet and he has, in fact, given BBC money.

I remember when I was in graduate school I couldn't make a statement without backing it with at least one source. Now, anybody can say anything they want and it's taken as factual. What has happened?

We've always had people who have been willing to believe without being given a legitimate reason to believe. It's a fundamental part of religion and is relatively harmless until it is sprayed all over all parts of society like it came out of the barrel of an AR15 in the hands of a greasy fingered toddler.

[JKLivin]

Or it's just assumed when you don't like what you read...

You are free to assume what you will. Reality is not changed by your assumptions.

If it is so widely known, I am sure it would be easy to provide an actual source that proves your theory as fact.

Start with the BBC and show me ownership or backing by George Soros.

Pro tip: "Widely assumed" isn't the same as "widely known". One requires facts while the other doesn't.

You are free to consume the sheep food being fed to you. Reality remains the same regardless.

[Sparko]

Russian collusion was true though. Everything from the NRA to Trump Tower Moscow. Manafort to Flynn. Rudy to Don Jr. A stain that will never be removed from the party of John Birch.

No, it wasn’t.

They just used the wrong term. It wasn't collusion. It was just the Russians taking advantage of a bunch of idiots in the Trump Administration, his circle of influence and the people who would vote for him so they could get what they wanted which was a moron who loved dictators in the White House.

Collusion is secret assistance rendered. Like a back-channel comm to the Kremlin bypassing the NSA. Or a secret meeting in Trump tower exchanging Kompromat. Or providing voting analytics to the FSB. Manafort was in jail for several dealings with Russia. Then there was the Russian DNC hack coordinated with Roger Stone. And the Russian money funneled through the NRA for Trump. People were going to be jailed before being pardoned by the collusionist. Stone and Flynn would have been. Bannon too. And yet there are these silly parsings.

[twocoach]

You are free to assume what you will. Reality is not changed by your assumptions.

If it is so widely known, I am sure it would be easy to provide an actual source that proves your theory as fact.

Start with the BBC and show me ownership or backing by George Soros.

Pro tip: "Widely assumed" isn't the same as "widely known". One requires facts while the other doesn't.

You are free to consume the sheep food being fed to you. Reality remains the same regardless.

Belief is not enough to make something reality.

Believing that something is truthful does not in itself make it truthful.

Lots of people believing something does not make it truthful, let alone a widely known truth.

You're basically coming out and saying "I don't care what the facts are, I still believe something different" but are too scared to own that so you've resorted to belittling the source of the fact or denying they exist at all.

I would think all these macho manly men would be less scared to just say what they really mean and own their beliefs, damn the evidence. Where's all that manly self confidence? Instead they just gaslight everyone by regurgitating lazy hot takes by Mr. "I know a guy" or just ignore the mountains of evidence that they are simply wrong. What a bunch of wussies.

[JKLivin]

If it is so widely known, I am sure it would be easy to provide an actual source that proves your theory as fact.

Start with the BBC and show me ownership or backing by George Soros.

Pro tip: "Widely assumed" isn't the same as "widely known". One requires facts while the other doesn't.

You are free to consume the sheep food being fed to you. Reality remains the same regardless.

Belief is not enough to make something reality.

Believing that something is truthful does not in itself make it truthful.

Lots of people believing something does not make it truthful, let alone a widely known truth.

You're basically coming out and saying "I don't care what the facts are, I still believe something different" but are too scared to own that so you've resorted to belittling the source of the fact or denying they exist at all.

I would think all these macho manly men would be less scared to just say what they really mean and own their beliefs, damn the evidence. Where's all that manly self confidence? Instead they just gaslight everyone by regurgitating lazy hot takes by Mr. "I know a guy" or just ignore the mountains of evidence that they are simply wrong. What a bunch of wussies.

I’ve played this game with your kind for years. You demand evidence, but won’t accept it unless it comes from the sources that won’t admit the truth because they are a part of the conspiracy. I’m all done playing. Believe what you want. Be a sheep. It makes me no difference.

[RainbowsandUnicorns]

You are free to consume the sheep food being fed to you. Reality remains the same regardless.

Belief is not enough to make something reality.

Believing that something is truthful does not in itself make it truthful.

Lots of people believing something does not make it truthful, let alone a widely known truth.

You're basically coming out and saying "I don't care what the facts are, I still believe something different" but are too scared to own that so you've resorted to belittling the source of the fact or denying they exist at all.

I would think all these macho manly men would be less scared to just say what they really mean and own their beliefs, damn the evidence. Where's all that manly self confidence? Instead they just gaslight everyone by regurgitating lazy hot takes by Mr. "I know a guy" or just ignore the mountains of evidence that they are simply wrong. What a bunch of wussies.

I’ve played this game with your kind for years. You demand evidence, but won’t accept it unless it comes from the sources that won’t admit the truth because they are a part of the conspiracy. I’m all done playing. Believe what you want. Be a sheep. It makes me no difference.

You've been diagnosed twocoach!

[twocoach]

You are free to consume the sheep food being fed to you. Reality remains the same regardless.

Belief is not enough to make something reality.

Believing that something is truthful does not in itself make it truthful.

Lots of people believing something does not make it truthful, let alone a widely known truth.

You're basically coming out and saying "I don't care what the facts are, I still believe something different" but are too scared to own that so you've resorted to belittling the source of the fact or denying they exist at all.

I would think all these macho manly men would be less scared to just say what they really mean and own their beliefs, damn the evidence. Where's all that manly self confidence? Instead they just gaslight everyone by regurgitating lazy hot takes by Mr. "I know a guy" or just ignore the mountains of evidence that they are simply wrong. What a bunch of wussies.

I’ve played this game with your kind for years. You demand evidence, but won’t accept it unless it comes from the sources that won’t admit the truth because they are a part of the conspiracy. I’m all done playing. Believe what you want. Be a sheep. It makes me no difference.

You aren't done playing. You'll continue this same nonsense forever. There are probably hundreds of sources about George Soros being an investor or backer if the BBC that I would accept because if it was actually true, hundreds of legitimate sources would be aware of it.

Ever wonder why all the stupid shit you believe can ONLY be sourced by sketchy, questionable sources?!? Because the information isn't true. It's not some grand conspiracy. It's just an application of common sense. Media sources are too greedy for clicks, money and attention to stay true to any grand, global media conspiracy to hide the truth. They are selfish attention hounds who would slice their friend's throats to get ahead of them to break real info first.

Good God, you're Steve Bannon's wet dream. How do you get a lifelong Democrat, a serial womanizer, a silver spooned NYC elitist draft dodger with decades of documented fraud against hard working Americans elected as a pious, patriotic, "man of the people" GOP nominee for President? You convince voters that their religion, their masculinity, their family, their children and their guns are all being targeting by evil Dems and that this famous businessman is their savior. Then you convince them that all legitimate media sources are not legitimate (so you can survive the inevitable reports of your countless illegal forays) and that any crackpot that parrots their talking point is an actual reputable source of information.

It's so embarrassing that you guys have fallen for this BS. But I guess I shouldn't be surprised that the people who has been convinced that some mythical cabal runs the world while becoming champions for one of the ACTUAL cabals that runs the world in Big Oil and who has been convinced that there is some mythical organization of pedophiles praying on their children while becoming champions for one of the ACTUAL organizations of pedophiles praying on people's children in the Catholic Church could be so easily fooled.

[Shirley]

Strong post, twocoach.

[randylahey]

So is this why the left is trying to cover up child trafficking? Cause they are in on it

[Shirley]

"whistleblower" is the new republican word for "laptop".

[Shirley]

So is this why the left is trying to cover up child trafficking? Cause they are in on it

2 hours ago
A Chinese national who was working as an informant for Republican Congressman James Comer has been indicted on charges of acting as a foreign agent. Comer had previously defended the informant, saying he was "very credible."