WouldBe
Dislicksick
So it's not what trump did it was what trump was allowed to do . There's a big difference.
Donald Trump - MAGAtwat news and discussion
- Thread starter tim
- Start date
That is precisely my point.
WouldBe
Dislicksick
Very badly worded. Trump didn't go against what he had said it was forced on him.
JimW
支那暗杀团
Recall reading some former Homeland Security bod arguing Trump was a severe threat to American security thanks to his encouragement of the rag-bag of likely domestic terrorists who in fact are the most likely perpetrators of attacks in the country, combination of him talking up political violence, hinting at pardons and identifying targets. Had a search and this was the article:
www.politico.com
Pesky deep state in for him again.
Opinion | Here’s the Intelligence Assessment of Donald Trump that the Government Can’t Write
Homeland Security officials can’t use politicians’ names in their assessments. But I can.
www.politico.com
planetgeli
There's no future in England's dreaming
Oh father please forgive me my sins but a) I'm fucking bored and b) I didn't know Dwyer before you lot. I only know this 'second coming' lol. So I searched. Silly me.
The first is from 2010. The second 2016.
What changed? Because it wasn't Trump.
It's the bits I've put in bold I'm interested in. Because that's not what you think now. You're a man of reason Phil. The first result I got, from 2006, had you castigating people for not using 'reason' like your superior self. So what was wrong with your reasoning pre-2017 shall we say?
Did you come to your senses? Or does this coincide with 'fake news', the criticism of "MSM" (like we all believed the fucking Telegraph in 1976) and 4 years of Trump, erm, propaganda?
Take your time.
The first is from 2010. The second 2016.
What changed? Because it wasn't Trump.
It's the bits I've put in bold I'm interested in. Because that's not what you think now. You're a man of reason Phil. The first result I got, from 2006, had you castigating people for not using 'reason' like your superior self. So what was wrong with your reasoning pre-2017 shall we say?
Did you come to your senses? Or does this coincide with 'fake news', the criticism of "MSM" (like we all believed the fucking Telegraph in 1976) and 4 years of Trump, erm, propaganda?
Take your time.
cupid_stunt
Chief seagull hater & farmerbarleymow's nemesis.
editor
hiraethified
I think pro-Trump right wingers like you ought to take a pause and think through the shit you're posting up.
I'm fed up reading complaints about your trolling all over these boards. This is the last thread I'm benning you from before it becomes a month-long site wide band.
My tip if you want to keep posting here: stop making excuses for racist American ex-presidents.
krtek a houby
Merry Xmas!
So the deep state got to you too, huh?
existentialist
Tired and unemotional
Or the bookies recognise that a lot of clueless idiots are going to put a lot of £££ on the orange monstrosity to win, but don't want to tear the arse out of it and risk catching a nasty cold by offering him at 99/1. Not that they'd need to - Trump loonies would probably happily bet their house at 11/10 on him winning.
nogojones
spelling is overrated
For sport
WouldBe
Dislicksick
Yeah, I remember that but don't have a clue what thread it was on.
Monkeygrinder's Organ
Dodgy geezer swilling vapid lager
Bintgate?
nogojones
spelling is overrated
I can't remember the lead-up at all. The boards were busier and I likely wasn't paying attention. I would like to revisit it though as I seem to recall it being one of those boat happy style highlights.
Spymaster
Plastic Paddy
Pickman's model has a good memory for these things. But Garf invited quite a few people for punch-ups, iirc.
Ax^
Silly Rabbit
don't know garf so will have to imagine what they were like
more like was asking did YouTube get to dywer or is that just him
cupid_stunt
Chief seagull hater & farmerbarleymow's nemesis.
This is the bintgate thread -
Plenty of posts by GarfieldLeChat, but none from dwyer, so I guess that wasn't the thread in question.
Plenty of posts by GarfieldLeChat, but none from dwyer, so I guess that wasn't the thread in question.
Elpenor
a clown’s heart and a mandolin
Just had a sample read of the thread, all kicking off from page 1, then by page 11 the insults are really flying!
Most prescient of all posts
cupid_stunt
Chief seagull hater & farmerbarleymow's nemesis.
Sasaferrato
Super Refuser!
Don't dis vegans. Come the apocalypse they are the nearest thing to grass fed beef.There was lots of beef back in the day, before the vegans started to take over.
* runs
two sheds
Least noticed poster 2007
I'm not sure this is quite right
www.huffingtonpost.co.uk
worse would have been to not let him stand
eta: although nice if it does go to appeal
Legal Experts Burst Trump’s Bubble Over New Ruling: Actually ‘Very Worst Decision' For Him
The former president shouldn’t be so fast in celebrating a new decision in his favor, argued Neal Katyal and Jill Wine-Banks.
worse would have been to not let him stand
eta: although nice if it does go to appeal
Jeff Robinson
Marxist-Lentilist: Jackboots and Jackfruit
Potentially important legal ruling on the eligibility of the orange pedophile for presidency today.
A Colorado court found that article 3 of the 14th Amendment - which prohibits individuals who engage in insurrection from public office - did not apply to presidential candidates. Accordingly, it couldn’t be used prevent Trump running for office.
However, the court did find that, as a matter of fact, Trump did engage in insurrection and his participation in it is not protected by the first amendment.
This is an important first step to getting this fascist serial rapist off the ballot. It establishes a factual record for appellate courts - Trump engaged in insurrection. The legal point in contention- whether the constitutional provision can debar to Trump - that’s still up for grabs and, in fact, one would not expect a trial court to issue a constitutional ruling with such enormous political ramifications.
This may wind its way up to the US Supreme Court. Sadly this is a heavily conservative body, but given how unhinged Trump now is, perhaps even they will turn on him.
A Colorado court found that article 3 of the 14th Amendment - which prohibits individuals who engage in insurrection from public office - did not apply to presidential candidates. Accordingly, it couldn’t be used prevent Trump running for office.
However, the court did find that, as a matter of fact, Trump did engage in insurrection and his participation in it is not protected by the first amendment.
This is an important first step to getting this fascist serial rapist off the ballot. It establishes a factual record for appellate courts - Trump engaged in insurrection. The legal point in contention- whether the constitutional provision can debar to Trump - that’s still up for grabs and, in fact, one would not expect a trial court to issue a constitutional ruling with such enormous political ramifications.
This may wind its way up to the US Supreme Court. Sadly this is a heavily conservative body, but given how unhinged Trump now is, perhaps even they will turn on him.
Jeff Robinson
Marxist-Lentilist: Jackboots and Jackfruit
Useful summary of another damning ruling for Trump:
tdlr: the ruling has given the appellate courts everything they need to rule Trump ineligible for the ballot.
tdlr: the ruling has given the appellate courts everything they need to rule Trump ineligible for the ballot.
Similar threads
