Liberal Forum

Blackvegetable » 01 Nov 2024, 10:02 am » wrote: ↑

01 Nov 2024, 10:02 am

No, Controlly

New Haven — This week the American business community did something virtually unprecedented in its history: It shunned the call to national service by the commander in chief. In the wake of President Trump’s horrifying, un-American equivalence of neo-Nazi storm troopers with the peaceful counter-demonstrators at their weekend rally in Charlottesville, Va., first one, then another, then a flood of chief executives quit his business councils. Now they need to do more.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/18/opin ... iness.html

you need things interpreted for you, Verbal...others don't.
 


 

Obviously you did not read my link on that one.  The transcript is there;


Reporter: "The neo-Nazis started this. They showed up in Charlottesville to protest --"Trump: "Excuse me, excuse me. They didn’t put themselves -- and you had some very bad people in that group, but you also had people that were very fine people, on both sides. You had people in that group. Excuse me, excuse me. I saw the same pictures as you did. You had people in that group that were there to protest the taking down of, to them, a very, very important statue and the renaming of a park from Robert E. Lee to another name."

 
 

*Huey » 01 Nov 2024, 10:09 am » wrote: ↑

01 Nov 2024, 10:09 am

Obviously you did not read my link on that one.  The transcript is there;

Reporter: "The neo-Nazis started this. They showed up in Charlottesville to protest --"Trump: "Excuse me, excuse me. They didn’t put themselves -- and you had some very bad people in that group, but you also had people that were very fine people, on both sides. You had people in that group. Excuse me, excuse me. I saw the same pictures as you did. You had people in that group that were there to protest the taking down of, to them, a very, very important statue and the renaming of a park from Robert E. Lee to another name."

Tiny, 

Don't rebleat the same ****.
 

Blackvegetable » 01 Nov 2024, 10:12 am » wrote: ↑

01 Nov 2024, 10:12 am

Tiny, 

Don't rebleat the same ****.
 

 

You post someone's interpretation.  I post the actual words.

No, he did not say Nazi's were fine people.  Idiots like you made Goebbels job very easy.  

*Huey » 01 Nov 2024, 10:16 am » wrote: ↑

01 Nov 2024, 10:16 am

You post someone's interpretation.  I post the actual words.

No, he did not say Nazi's were fine people.  Idiots like you made Goebbels job very easy.

You insist that some interpretation is gospel.

People far more literate than you, with much at stake, completely disagree with your slogan.

Blackvegetable » 01 Nov 2024, 10:22 am » wrote: ↑

01 Nov 2024, 10:22 am

You insist that some interpretation is gospel.

People far more literate than you, with much at stake, completely disagree with your slogan.

I didn't posted an interpretation.  You did.  I posted the actual words.  And that trumps your influencer.  

*Huey » 01 Nov 2024, 10:24 am » wrote: ↑

01 Nov 2024, 10:24 am

I didn't posted an interpretation.  You did.  I posted the actual words.  And that trumps your influencer.

but you also had people that were very fine people, on both sides

it's not about how I responded...I showed you how OTHERS did.

But as you are wont to do, you make it about me.

Blackvegetable » 01 Nov 2024, 10:42 am » wrote: ↑

01 Nov 2024, 10:42 am

but you also had people that were very fine people, on both sides

it's not about how I responded...I showed you how OTHERS did.

But as you are wont to do, you make it about me.

You have pluck a line out of the comment to protect those who told you what to think  Let's try that again:

This puts it in context:


eporter: "The neo-Nazis started this. They showed up in Charlottesville to protest --"Trump: "Excuse me, excuse me. They didn’t put themselves -- and you had some very bad people in that group, but you also had people that were very fine people, on both sides. 


Verbatim DOES NOT always mean IN CONTEXT.  

 

*Huey » 01 Nov 2024, 11:08 am » wrote: ↑

01 Nov 2024, 11:08 am

You have pluck a line out of the comment to protect those who told you what to think  Let's try that again:

This puts it in context:

eporter: "The neo-Nazis started this. They showed up in Charlottesville to protest --"Trump: "Excuse me, excuse me. They didn’t put themselves -- and you had some very bad people in that group, but you also had people that were very fine people, on both sides. 

Verbatim DOES NOT always mean IN CONTEXT.

to protect those who told you what to think 

Read this again.

it's not about how I responded...I showed you how OTHERS did.

Blackvegetable » 01 Nov 2024, 11:16 am » wrote: ↑

01 Nov 2024, 11:16 am

Read this again.

it's not about how I responded...I showed you how OTHERS did.

Read this and remember:

I don't care what others tell you to think....it is about how you respond.

Since you are in here using the arguments of others in your failing attempt to show they are not hoaxes I will have to say you believe those sources.

Remember, you claim to have posted evidence that they are not hoaxes.  That is is how YOU responded.

Majik » 28 Oct 2024, 7:58 pm » wrote: ↑

28 Oct 2024, 7:58 pm

tIf Reelected, Trump Will Execute People Hoax
 

trump said to shoot liz cheney.

with a speech like this it is not hard to imagine trump executing people who disagree with him. and I do not sGupport harris in any way-------------

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics ... -shooting/


GLENDALE, Ariz. — Republican nominee Donald Trump faced a fresh controversy on Friday after he suggested former congresswoman Liz Cheney (R-Wyoming) should have guns "trained on her face,” escalating his vilification of a prominent critic from within his party, as well as his use of violent imagery.

Cut through the 2024 election noise. Get The Campaign Moment newsletter.
The former president’s campaign reacted by criticizing media coverage that interpreted his remark to imagine putting Cheney in front of a firing squad rather than sending her into combat. Cheney said Trump’s purpose was to intimidate anyone who challenges him.
 

jerrab » 01 Nov 2024, 1:36 pm » wrote: ↑

01 Nov 2024, 1:36 pm

trump said to shoot liz cheney.

No....

This is what he said....

"She's a radical war hawk. Let's put her with a rifle standing there, with nine barrels shooting at her, okay? Let's see how she feels about it, you know, when the guns are trained on her face," Trump said at a campaign event in Arizona on Thursday.

Which obviously meant .....That maybe Cheney should be given a gun and sent to fight in a warzone with her life on the line ....
Which would probably change her opinion pretty damn fast at sending our troops to die for politics....



 

Majik » 01 Nov 2024, 1:47 pm » wrote: ↑

01 Nov 2024, 1:47 pm

No....

This is what he said....

"She's a radical war hawk. Let's put her with a rifle standing there, with nine barrels shooting at her, okay? Let's see how she feels about it, you know, when the guns are trained on her face," Trump said at a campaign event in Arizona on Thursday.

Which obviously meant .....That maybe Cheney should be given a gun and sent to fight in a warzone with her life on the line ....
Which would probably change her opinion pretty damn fast at sending our troops to die for politics....

he nothing about that all, no metrion of a war zone, he described a firing squad to the tee,

Majik » 01 Nov 2024, 1:47 pm » wrote: ↑

01 Nov 2024, 1:47 pm

No....

This is what he said....

"She's a radical war hawk. Let's put her with a rifle standing there, with nine barrels shooting at her, okay? Let's see how she feels about it, you know, when the guns are trained on her face," Trump said at a campaign event in Arizona on Thursday.

Which obviously meant .....That maybe Cheney should be given a gun and sent to fight in a warzone with her life on the line ....
Which would probably change her opinion pretty damn fast at sending our troops to die for politics....

.54

trump go as far as supporters will let him go---

https://youtu.be/q2qdbYfrjT0?si=BjO8Rzvmzm3JVHzB




there is no getting around this.
 

jerrab » 01 Nov 2024, 2:08 pm » wrote: ↑

01 Nov 2024, 2:08 pm

he nothing about that all, no metrion of a war zone, he described a firing squad to the tee,

I can see how you liberals and leftists are being affected by the Dems propaganda campaign of fear .....
but let me ask you something .....
What would Trump have to do to......to actually do this to Cheney when and if he becomes President .....?

Let's start there .....
In this exercise of talking you down from the ledge ...before you jump...





 

Majik » 01 Nov 2024, 2:40 pm » wrote: ↑

01 Nov 2024, 2:40 pm

I can see how you liberals and leftists are being affected by the Dems propaganda campaign of fear .....
but let me ask you something .....
What would Trump have to do to......to actually do this to Cheney when and if he becomes President .....?

Let's start there .....
In this exercise of talking you down from the ledge ...before you jump...

do you think he won't order an execution after the new powers the supreme court granted him?

I don't base anything after the libs, his own words and actions are what I go on.

Majik » 01 Nov 2024, 2:40 pm » wrote: ↑

01 Nov 2024, 2:40 pm

I can see how you liberals and leftists are being affected by the Dems propaganda campaign of fear .....
but let me ask you something .....
What would Trump have to do to......to actually do this to Cheney when and if he becomes President .....?

Let's start there .....
In this exercise of talking you down from the ledge ...before you jump...

trump can do anything in office and have immunity. he did not have this when he was president and there is no telling what he will do if elected. no telling at all.

-----------------------------------------------------------------In a shocking and lawless opinion, the Supreme Court granted presidents broad protections from criminal prosecution for “official acts” they undertake while in office. This ruling from the Court’s conservative supermajority pulls a new constitutional rule from thin air. And it raises daunting, unjustifiable barriers to criminally prosecuting lawbreaking presidents. Trump is now positioned to renew his push to dismiss the charges against him and evade accountability for the grave crimes he’s accused of committing against our democracy. The Court has left the rule of law in tatters — even as it looks the other way.The Court’s 6–3 opinion — authored by Chief Justice John Roberts and joined by Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett — attempts to set out rules to govern prosecutions of any and all future occupants of the Oval Office. Presidents, the Court rules, “may not be prosecuted for exercising [their] core constitutional powers, and [are] entitled to at least presumptive immunity from prosecution for [their] official acts.” The Court notes that presidents “enjoy no immunity for [their] unofficial acts, and not everything the President does is official.” But the latter assertion rings hollow in the context of the opinion that surrounds it. The Court has created an elaborate system of ambiguous rules that will not only ratchet up the complexity of the case against Trump but also erode the checks on presidential illegality. It is both a roadblock to prosecution and an encouragement to more insurrection.

--------------------------------

he can say anything he does is an official act including ordering executions and there will be no legal recourse stopping him.

both candidates are terrible, the country is in big trouble.
 

*Huey » 01 Nov 2024, 1:24 pm » wrote: ↑

01 Nov 2024, 1:24 pm

Read this and remember:

I don't care what others tell you to think....it is about how you respond.

Since you are in here using the arguments of others in your failing attempt to show they are not hoaxes I will have to say you believe those sources.

Remember, you claim to have posted evidence that they are not hoaxes.  That is is how YOU responded.

No, Tiny.

Learn to read.

Blackvegetable » 01 Nov 2024, 2:55 pm » wrote: ↑

01 Nov 2024, 2:55 pm

No, Tiny.

Learn to read.

Yeah, your use of strike thru is a sign you lost.

Oh, don't forget the "Bloodbath" lie.

And now the "he wants to murder Liz Cheney ****".

Go ahead, Strike thru it, Duplex Loser.
 

*Huey » 01 Nov 2024, 1:24 pm » wrote: ↑

01 Nov 2024, 1:24 pm

Read this and remember:

I don't care what others tell you to think....it is about how you respond.

Since you are in here using the arguments of others in your failing attempt to show they are not hoaxes I will have to say you believe those sources.

Remember, you claim to have posted evidence that they are not hoaxes.  That is is how YOU responded.

Whenever you divert and go into Askholio mode and attacking another poster YOU MAKE IT about YOU.