Trump Finally Concedes In Disgrace

was she armed?

Should police shoot unarmed people?

Seems the BLM movement, tried to change this. I Agree with that.

Suddenly you all are ok with cops shooting unarmed people?

One police officer was killed by the "unarmed" protestors. Your argument is complete and utter bullshit.
Go tell that to the officer's family that the unarmed protestors were not threat.

The police officer wasn't just "killed", he was brutally beaten and murdered. Over 50 other officers were also injured by the insurrectionists who attacked and ransacked the Capitol as Trump and Rudy instructed them to do.

This is going to be a life-altering year for these RW nut jobs. They think they are safe, but they've plastered their faces and addresses all over the Internet. Eventually all will be tracked down and "interviewed".

Many will be harmless, usually elderly or mentally ill, and left with a warning.

Others will have been found to have committed other crimes and will be arrested then handed over in chains to the appropriate State authorities.

A few will be charged and tried for Federal crimes including conspiracy to overthrow the US government, conspiracy to build and use WMDs, conspiracy to commit murder and, a fewer still, will be charged with murder.
 
It just goes to show how fake all Democrats are. They all talk out their ass.

You and I know there is a difference between shooting an unarmed American citizen running from being a deadbeat dad and shooting the member of an angry mob seeking to breach a barricaded door with police protecting members of Congress and staffers.

Everyone should be able to see the forest for the trees here.
 
a police officer getting bludgeoned to death with a fire extinguisher by you guys is not a joke of an insurrection

Stop being a fucking moron, Katz. It makes you look mentally unstable and, therefore, an unreliable source of reason.

I have never advocated insurrection or illegal actions. If you think otherwise, provide the evidence or just keep looking stupid and overly emotional.
 
Stop being a fucking moron, Katz. It makes you look mentally unstable and, therefore, an unreliable source of reason.

I have never advocated insurrection or illegal actions. If you think otherwise, provide the evidence or just keep looking stupid and overly emotional.


HMMMMM, gotta wonder ehy you concluded you guys was aimed at you.. You made an interesting assumption.
 
Hello cordeela,



Thank you for backing off and making a post without insulting me. What makes me happy is exchanging political views with others in a respectful way. I do not seek conditions for chatting politics online. I have instead defined them and posted them for all to see:

Personal Ignore Policy PIP: I like civil discourse. I will give you all the respect in the world if you respect me. Mouth off to me, or express overt racism, you will be PERMANENTLY Ignore Listed. Zero tolerance. No exceptions. I'll never read a word you write, even if quoted by another, nor respond to you, nor participate in your threads. ... Ignore the shallow. Cherish the thoughtful. Long Live Civil Discourse, Mutual Respect, and Good Debate! ps: Feel free to adopt my PIP. It works well.

Yes, it is a very strange world. I know that offering respectful dialog on a site full of nastiness is unusual, so I have already accepted that I will have a very large Ignore List. I am on the left, so my list is mostly people on the right, but it also contains people on the left. It has zero to do with politics and everything to do with basic respect.

Some people are able to turn it on and turn it off at will. And they have full control of themselves. If you are able to maintain respect with me I will always return it. If not we won't be talking long. I hope we can share mutual respect from now on, and that we have many very interesting and thought-provoking discussions.

Basically, people come in here and think they have to 'be tough,' and 'able to take it.' And this gives them 'the right to dish it out.' btdt, tired of it.

I neither want to take it nor dish it out. I just want to talk politics and learn. If you want a diversion from all the insult contests and want to talk straight politics I'll be here for that.

You said you thought Biden is a fraudster. He has messed up and committed plagiarism in the past, but I feel he has learned his lesson and been very open and remorseful from it. I see him as a man who is able to recognize and learn from his mistakes. I see Trump as a man who is unable to ever admit he made a mistake, so he learns nothing and does not improve. His level of maturity is that of a 12 year old since he basically has not matured any more since that age.

Can you provide any reason for the claim that Biden has committed fraud? Trump has been accused of massive fraud. He had to settle just after he was elected in a very public fraud case related to his now defunct 'Trump University' which turned out to be little more than a fake school which was not accredited and offered no degree. There were no tests, no achievement. Only a few lectures in which the defrauded 'students' were promised to hear directly in person from Trump himself, but that never occurred. Thus, he was charged with fraud in a civil case, and forced to settle because he could not prove otherwise. He paid $25 million to reimburse those he bilked.

His presidency began in disgrace and now it is ending in disgrace. He is about to be impeached for the second time. Shame. We will be better off without him. He belongs in prison. He has brought disgrace and shame to the presidency and to the USA in the world view. Russia and China are making fun of us, pointing at Trump and saying: "See? The USA is terrible!"[/QUOTE
I have no blind allegiance to any political party, never have. I tend towards the person and if they have integrity. You are not a person without integrity if you are NOT perfect, a saint. You are not a person without integrity if you make a mistake. I do not compare Mr Trump to a saint or Jesus. I do not have this perfect person and then compare others to that standard. I discern upon the character of a person on the premise that we all strive to do our best and we all make mistakes. So when I rate Mr Trump I rate his integrity and I compare him to Obama, Clinton, Bush, Nixon et al. So if he gets a word our of place or his Tie is not straight or he does not greet the UK Queen exactly to protocol, I could not give a shite. I judge Biden to the same standards.
But here is the absolute 100% unequivocal fact..... and I never adhere to MSM. What is the difference between a COP standing watching a man batter a young woman and that cop does nothing.... and a person holding official public office (especially high office) standing watching murder and destruction and has the power to change this and does not do so??? Tell me the difference please?
Boxing is my number 1 thing. So for example, to explain my stance on things: I watched Mike Tyson he is without doubt an outstanding boxer - he can hold the label of greatness. But, when he raped a woman I stopped supporting him and could not care less what he has done or does. I know people who just see his raping a woman as nothing and just carry on applauding him. I do not and never have and never will behave in that mindset not for any person. I see the rape as so serious I can not support such a person. I know people who dont care, I personally find that puzzling but thats their choice.
So, When I see Dem supporters of that rotten evil criminal Killary Clinton and her rapist sexual pervert Billy boy, I can not take seriously any person or group which supports what they stand for - DEMOCRAT candidates holding high office. This is just how I tick. Biden can not string two sentences together. He is vile. He prefers to seek for getting his position rather than attack the acts of fiddling elections and serious criminal fraud, election fraud. He has the silly leftie smirk on his face which ALL leftie libs display when they speak, have a look, they all do it and this is a clear sign of lying and deceit.
Mr Trump never uses semantics - all before him used semantics. Biden uses semantics. Mr Trump was voted to power in 2016 because he is a straight talker and people like that. Lets be straight are you truly saying that Biden is worthy of holding the office of President?? I judge him objectively and when I say i thought nothing could be worse than Justin trudeau then you know Biden is an absolute shite of the lowest order.
So if you answer my comments especially the aforesaid on COPs standing watching, doing nothing I would appreciate that. Just to say.. I never accept MSM and leftie bollox via the media. I know what I see and that forms my opinions. I never seek approval and dont care if people disagree with me. I despise PC and oppose Hate Speech as a law. I never get offended and I dont care if someone chooses to be offended based upon my honest opinions/stance.
Zukkeeboy, who owns Farce-Buk is Fact Checking every thing now.. every thing a person he deems to be of the political Right - Zukkeboy is censoring. Even stuff I know 1005 is fact but it is deemed to be of the Right. Do you support that??
 
Hello cordeela,

I have no blind allegiance to any political party, never have. I tend towards the person and if they have integrity. You are not a person without integrity if you are NOT perfect, a saint. You are not a person without integrity if you make a mistake. I do not compare Mr Trump to a saint or Jesus. I do not have this perfect person and then compare others to that standard. I discern upon the character of a person on the premise that we all strive to do our best and we all make mistakes. So when I rate Mr Trump I rate his integrity and I compare him to Obama, Clinton, Bush, Nixon et al. So if he gets a word our of place or his Tie is not straight or he does not greet the UK Queen exactly to protocol, I could not give a shite. I judge Biden to the same standards.
But here is the absolute 100% unequivocal fact..... and I never adhere to MSM.

It is best to use multiple sources and cross-check information. I like PBS Newshour, BBC, NPR, Reuters, UPI.
 
Hello cordeela,

What is the difference between a COP standing watching a man batter a young woman and that cop does nothing.... and a person holding official public office (especially high office) standing watching murder and destruction and has the power to change this and does not do so??? Tell me the difference please?

Well, in the case of the first-hand situation, if a police officer is charged with protecting the public and fails to do so, that is an abdication of duty. The officer should face disciplinary action or dismissal.

In the case of a public office holder, it is far more complicated. Lots of them go into office on high ideals and lofty promises but fail to deliver. The reasons for this can be wide and varied but I think the big one is money. Our system of government is corrupted and thus rigged to serve the rich and powerful. If you've got tons of money and a habit of spreading it around in a political party then you can have lunch or dinner with high elected officials; whereas the rest of the people can write letters till they're blue in the face and get nothing more than a form reply. Our government has about a 30% chance of passing a law whether nobody wants it, or everybody wants it. Doesn't matter. What matters is if the rich want it. Then it has double the chance of passing. Here is an interesting clip that explains it:

 
Hello cordeela,

Boxing is my number 1 thing. So for example, to explain my stance on things: I watched Mike Tyson he is without doubt an outstanding boxer - he can hold the label of greatness. But, when he raped a woman I stopped supporting him and could not care less what he has done or does. I know people who just see his raping a woman as nothing and just carry on applauding him. I do not and never have and never will behave in that mindset not for any person. I see the rape as so serious I can not support such a person. I know people who dont care, I personally find that puzzling but thats their choice.
So, When I see Dem supporters of that rotten evil criminal Killary Clinton and her rapist sexual pervert Billy boy, I can not take seriously any person or group which supports what they stand for - DEMOCRAT candidates holding high office. This is just how I tick.

High ideals like that are commendable. It is understandable why neither major party is acceptable in that regard. Logically, if an entire party is to answer for the worst thing that the worst member of that party ever did, then neither party has a leg to stand on. That's sad because both parties also contain honorable people who get grouped in with the bad ones by using this approach. And that makes it virtually impossible to ever get a candidate who will represent the wishes of such a strictly virtuous voter.

And even if such an individual appeared on the scene, without a major party to back them they are going nowhere. And even if such an individual managed to get elected, without a party to stand with them in Congress, that virtuous office-holder would be unable to pass any meaningful legislation. They would be a lame duck from day one, get nothing accomplished, lose popularity, and be sure to be a one-term wonder that nobody thought did anything worth while.

That's why candidates associate with, and run with, a political party. The power of a political party is virtually impossible to compete against without having equal power to match it.
 
Hello cordeela,

Biden can not string two sentences together.

I never noticed anything objectionable about the way he speaks. When he became a serious contender for the nomination, I learned a little bit more about him. I was astonished to learn that he had a really bad stutter as a child, and that he vowed to overcome it and even enter a field which would require him to to public speaking! For a stuttering person, this is quite an achievement. Most people who stutter would be extremely reluctant to speak in public. That tells us that this is a person of commitment and determination. Pretty amazing to overcome stuttering...
 
Last edited:
Hello cordeela,

He is vile. He prefers to seek for getting his position rather than attack the acts of fiddling elections and serious criminal fraud, election fraud.

All 50 elections were checked out very thoroughly. Each State has it's own process. There was no fraud in any significant amount that would have affected the outcome. Completely fair elections, all 50 of them. Trump had his chance to present evidence of fraud in dozens of trials. None of them resulted in any election being ruled fraudulent. None. Zero.

It is one thing to make a claim. It is quite another to back it up with facts. Words are cheap. Anybody can string words together. Doesn't make them true. Trump has a lifetime record of getting free publicity by making outrageous statements which cannot be backed up with fact. He claimed for years that the Central Park 5 were guilty even though he had no evidence of it. They served time for a crime they did not commit. Finally, DNA evidence proved they were all innocent. They were released, all charges dropped. Trump never admitted he was wrong, never apologized to them for making false accusations. Trump is up to his old tricks. Making false accusations, now making them about the election. He has no evidence. If he did, he surely would have presented it by now. Trump is a fake.
 
Hello cordeela,

Mr Trump never uses semantics - all before him used semantics. Biden uses semantics.

Trump is little more than semantics. He is all talk and very little substance. He can hardly even complete a sentence without interrupting himself. He speaks largely in innuendo. Take a look at his slogan. Make America great again. First of all, he stole it from Reagan, who also failed to fulfill it. That is, if one can discern just exactly what it means. It implies that America was previously great, and is no longer great. So the natural questions become when was America great, and when did America cease to be great? And what defines being great? If it's great for rich people but not for poor people does that make it great?

Neither Trump nor Reagan ever answered any of those questions. Most people already think America is great and has been great for a long time. This is a great country. Great in size, great in achievement, great in wealth, great in human rights, great in compassion for the under advantaged, and great in democracy. Most people would not agree that breaking up families is not great, ripping crying children from their parents is not great, putting them in cages with pitiful conditions is not great. Thousands of them unable to reconnect, families broken up forever. No, that's not great.

If a reporter ever asked President Trump to name a single year in American history when he thought America was great, he would refuse to answer and probably call the reporter a name or say it is a nasty question. That's totally speaking in semantics... After all, it would be an easy question. Why not simply answer straight up if he is such a 'straight talker?'

Does Biden use semantics? Yes. All politicians do. They have to say catchy things that will be easy to place in a news report and be picked up by listeners. No politician can avoid this. They have to sum up complex views in a sound byte, come up with something they can be remembered by, or else they won't get far. Politics is messy that way. The nature of the American political system forces this. Trump was often accused of using 'dog whistles.' That's another word for semantics. He says one thing but means another.
 
Hello cordeela,

Mr Trump was voted to power in 2016 because he is a straight talker and people like that.

Trump got elected because he courted the 'hate vote.' He would have lost without the hateful racist vote base. He barely squeaked into office on very thin margins and he lost the popular vote by millions. Mr. Trump as president was not what the American People wanted. More people voted against him than voted for him. Hillary was who the people wanted. Hillary won the popular vote. Trump only got in because he won the electoral college.

Straight talker? I disagree. He is a nasty talker. He insults people. Hateful people may like that, but most people do not like to be insulted. Trump takes credit for the work of others but never takes responsibility when his decisions are wrong. Instead of straight talk, when answering accusations of wrongdoing, he becomes a double talker. He refuses to address issues head on, but instead always seeks to deny, distract and attack others.
 
Hello cordeela,

Lets be straight are you truly saying that Biden is worthy of holding the office of President??

Of course he is. He is completely qualified. He was already Vice President for 8 years. He just won more votes for president than any other president has ever received.
 
Hello cordeela,

I despise PC and oppose Hate Speech as a law. I never get offended and I dont care if someone chooses to be offended based upon my honest opinions/stance.

There is nothing wrong with being politically correct. That simply means that one person respects another person enough that they seek to avoid insulting them based on an assumptive stereotype. It is important that mutual respect is maintained because without it then a meaningful conversation cannot be had.

If person A makes a point that person B does not like, then person B says something hurtful about person A because person B cannot come up with a valid objection to the point made by person A.

That's not arguing an issue. That's just trying to derail a conversation by being hurtful. If an individual has a good counter argument, then that counter argument should stand on it's own merit. If it does not, then it wasn't a very good counter argument. Piling on insults does not make an argument better. All it does is distract from the original conversation.

Basically, if an individual is losing an argument then they can always simply toss the insult card and get out of it. And that's just BS.

That's like losing at Monopoly or Chess, and overturning the game board to get out of facing a final loss.

Anybody who has a better argument only detracts from that if they go the insult route.

The better case is all one requires to win an argument.

Getting personal has nothing to do with discussing politics.
 
Hello cordeela,

Zukkeeboy, who owns Farce-Buk is Fact Checking every thing now.. every thing a person he deems to be of the political Right - Zukkeboy is censoring. Even stuff I know 1005 is fact but it is deemed to be of the Right. Do you support that??

I agree with what FB did. I disagree with your interpretation of it. The site guidelines have nothing to do with political positioning. They are designed to allow safe exchange of messages. Messages that lead to violence should not be allowed. That is akin to yelling fire in a crowded theater. FB does not seek to become a platform for hatred and violence.

Trump would be perfectly within his rights to initiate a lawsuit claiming that his first amendment rights had been violated by FB. He would lose.
 
Back
Top