Florida State Seminoles

[hedge]

"You are entitled to your own opinions, but not your own facts."

You're a mouth-breathing idiot. Fact.

[Jungle Rat]

"Trump (personally) never obstructed any investigation of him."

And there it is

[hedge]

[innocentbystander]

"Trump (personally) never obstructed any investigation of him."

And there it is

Every single Republican in congress said (in 2018) that if Trump fired Mueller (or did even ONE THING to obstruct the investigation) that they would have voted to impeach him AND every Republican Senator (not just Romney, ALL OF THEM) would have voted to fire the man. They all went on the record to say that Trump simply had to sit there and let Mueller do whatever Mueller was going to do. Republicans stipulated that POTUS Trump simply had to "submit" to Mueller.

So, he did. And we all know the results. The results were nothing. And you know it. Not even Christopher Steele can defend the Steele dossier. Interview is right here.



And there it is.

[innocentbystander]

Igor Danchenko (the mastermind behind much of the horseshit that comprised the Steele Dossier) he wasn't even arrested for perjury until November of 2021!



Its only March. Lets see if he cuts a deal with Durham (if he is guilty, then that is likely) and lets see if Biden pardons him?

So tell me, how did I get any of my facts on the Trump investigation, mixed up?

[eCat]

so if you are Putin and that is the case, why wait until General Mumbles is president over Trump?

[innocentbystander]

so if you are Putin and that is the case, why wait until General Mumbles is president over Trump?

This is my thought.

I ask my more left-leaning colleagues if they think Putin would have invaded Ukraine if Trump was still President. You know what they say when I ask them that question? Nothing. Silence. I put it into an email or post it on a chat, and the question goes unanswered.

Lets see if DS, hedge, or rat are willing to answer that question. I actually think one of them will, but lets see.

[Jungle Rat]

Trump is personally obstructing investigations into him as we speak.

Yes. Putin would have invaded and Trump would have blew it off. The elections are coming up. He needs their help.

[innocentbystander]

Trump is personally obstructing investigations into him as we speak.

Linkie please? I was objective in my Russian collusion analysis. I want to see objective obstruction. I am not saying you are wrong (you are probably correct) I just want to read about the obstruction.

Yes. Putin would have invaded and Trump would have blew it off. The elections are coming up. He needs their help.

Okay. Well, if the war is still going on in November of 2024, lets put it to the test. Lets re-elect Trump to be President and see what happens in Ukraine on Jan 20th, 2025. Maybe the Russians will go home faster than the Iranians let the US embassy hostages go on Jan 20th, 1981?

[Jungle Rat]

Thankfully We'll never get to that point.

[hedge]

I've heard it said that a wounded animal is the most dangerous animal, but I don't think that's true. On nature shows, the lions or wolves always go after the wounded animal. And if male lion is trying to take over a pride from another male, if the lead male is wounded the challenger isn't thinking "oh shit, I better not challenge him now, he's wounded and dangerous," he thinks "now is my chance!" So I don't think that's a good phrase...

[aTm]

The wounded animal is dangerous to the dumbfuck human who wants to help it or harm it because its scared and is a wild animal. Its more dangerous than a non wounded animal because the non-wounded animal would just run away from the dumbfuck human.

[innocentbystander]

I'm not going to blame Biden for this. This is both parties.

https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/a ... ue-reading

Now, to be fair to the president, the interest in cutting deficits, or even paying lip-service to the idea, has been fading away for some time. Just for fun, here is a list of how many times debt and deficit were mentioned by some presidents in their first SOTU addresses:

In 1993 (debt ratio = 47 percent), Clinton mentioned the national debt nine times and the deficit 21 times in the SOTU. And he actually ended his term with a budget surplus, not a deficit.
In 2001 (debt ratio = 33 percent), Bush mentioned the debt five times in his SOTU.
In 2009 (debt ratio = 47 percent), Obama mentioned the debt two times and the deficit eight times. And after the Great Recession, we had a big fight over the need for the implementation of austerity measures.
In 2017 (debt ratio = 75 percent), Trump mentioned the debt once. This isn’t surprising, since he came into office announcing that he wouldn’t cut the drivers of our future debt: Social Security and Medicare.
In 2022 (debt ratio = 100 percent), Biden mentioned the debt two times (in the context of making health care free for veterans) and the deficit six times to say that more spending would reduce our indebtedness.

This trend has been a long time coming, but it doesn’t make it anymore more acceptable.

No it doesn't.

Facts are facts. The federal debt is 100% of our GDP. That is a fact, not an opinion. Just because I am quoting national review, it doesn't make what I am quoting an opinion. We are broke. We are not fighting World War II. Nor are we building 10,000 miles of Federal interstate. Nor are we building the Hoover Dam. And NASA, do we even have NASA? All this is (ALL OF IT) is just take money away from 230,000,000 poorer young people and give it to 100,000,000 wealthier older people.

I think it is high time we say to the old people of this country; #1 you didn't have enough kids (to become future taxpayers) because you aborted too many of them, #2 you didn't save enough in your retirement, #3 our healthcare system is so outstanding you are living into your 90s, but #4 the Medicare and Social Security transfer payments have bankrupted the nation. Math doesn't work anymore grandma. So either you start to pay some income taxes on the benefits you receive, you forgo your benefits because you are worth $500K (your house is paid off, SELL IT), you double or triple my income tax rate (in which case, I'll just quit), or we keep doing what we are doing and you keep borrowing from your great grandchildren so you can stay alive. We never have the 6th grade math conversation that we need because old people vote and if you show them math, they cry.

The average 65 year old head of household has 47 times the assets of the average 35 year old head of household. Fourty-seven-times the assets! Now much of that math is because the 35 year old is swimming in debt (mortgage, student loans, car loans, and credit cards) while the 65 year old person is free-and-clear, but the math is still the math. The old people have the assets, just not the income. In this country, we tax income to give old people income until death.

[Jungle Rat]

20220302_150219.jpg (58.08 KiB) Viewed 233 times

[innocentbystander]

you put them there. 13 of them

[Jungle Rat]

They look like 2 drunk football bitches screaming at the umpires.

[innocentbystander]

Republican women are thin and attractive.

rat, you'd fuck both of them

[Jungle Rat]

Not this one

[hedge]

[Jungle Rat]

received_541731613799652.jpeg (97.06 KiB) Viewed 210 times