Topic: Trump: "I'm really rich. I'm a multi-billionaire."
Anonymous A started this discussion 1 year ago #116,834
Also Trump: "I can't pay my bond. Will a bunch of poor rednecks please donate money to me? Thanks."
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU joined in and replied with this 1 year ago, 24 minutes later[^] [v] #1,288,813
Even billionaires don't have half a billion sitting around in cash and it's reasonable to not want to sell a building or two to pay for a judgment you think should be overturned on appeal.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 1 year ago, 38 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,288,817
Anonymous C joined in and replied with this 1 year ago, 8 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,288,819
The democrats are trying to use their puppet judges to disempower Trump through financial lawfare. If the right just lets it happen they will lose politics altogether, because the courts and the banks can just wipe the accounts of any conservative that bothers them.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 1 year ago, 1 minute later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,288,820
@previous (C)
You do realize that Trump's judges are ones appointed by him, right? You also realize that the decision to prosecute is made by a grand jury of citizens, not political appointees or politicians, right?
You do realize that Trump's judges are ones appointed by him, right? You also realize that the decision to prosecute is made by a grand jury of citizens, not political appointees or politicians, right?
Anonymous C replied with this 1 year ago, 3 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,288,821
@previous (A)
> You do realize that Trump's judges are ones appointed by him, right?
Most of these judges are working for the democratic party.
> You also realize that the decision to prosecute is made by a grand jury of citizens, not political appointees or politicians, right?
Grand juries don't just self-assemble and decide to pursue someone. The state is bringing these cases to the grand jury, who almost always rubber stamps whatever case they are being questioned on.
The prosecution is controlled by their politician bosses, the da goes through the formality of making their case to the grand jury, and then the judge can move up politically by ruling against trump.
> You do realize that Trump's judges are ones appointed by him, right?
Most of these judges are working for the democratic party.
> You also realize that the decision to prosecute is made by a grand jury of citizens, not political appointees or politicians, right?
Grand juries don't just self-assemble and decide to pursue someone. The state is bringing these cases to the grand jury, who almost always rubber stamps whatever case they are being questioned on.
The prosecution is controlled by their politician bosses, the da goes through the formality of making their case to the grand jury, and then the judge can move up politically by ruling against trump.
(Edited 3 minutes later.)
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 1 year ago, 16 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,288,823
@previous (C)
No, they are Trump appointees and Republicans. Also, grand juries decide based on the evidence presented.
No, they are Trump appointees and Republicans. Also, grand juries decide based on the evidence presented.
Anonymous C replied with this 1 year ago, 51 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,288,824
@previous (A)
There's some democratic appointees in the mix, and some turncloaks who want to cash in.
There's some democratic appointees in the mix, and some turncloaks who want to cash in.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 1 year ago, 3 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,288,825
Anonymous C replied with this 1 year ago, 57 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,288,827
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 1 year ago, 40 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,288,829
Anonymous C replied with this 1 year ago, 4 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,288,831
Reuters is a pro-imperialist rag, of course they would be against a non-interventionist like Trump.
These corporations want a war with Russia so their owners can see their profiteering stocks triple overnight, the media is an expense to leverage useful idiots like you.
These corporations want a war with Russia so their owners can see their profiteering stocks triple overnight, the media is an expense to leverage useful idiots like you.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 1 year ago, 3 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,288,833
Anonymous C replied with this 1 year ago, 35 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,288,844
@previous (A)
Typical liberal hate, anyone who doesn't agree with you is the enemy and you can't talk to the enemy.
I hope you get better.
Typical liberal hate, anyone who doesn't agree with you is the enemy and you can't talk to the enemy.
I hope you get better.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 1 year ago, 1 minute later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,288,845
Anonymous C replied with this 1 year ago, 8 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,288,846
@previous (A)
No, I think he's just acceptable if the alternative is Biden.
I'm not a big fan of trump or the republicans but when crazy dems want to devalue the currency, turn schools into queer conversion therapy, and make everything about race I will vote for anyone keeping them out.
You are the cultist who thinks everyone not towing the party line is wrong.
No, I think he's just acceptable if the alternative is Biden.
I'm not a big fan of trump or the republicans but when crazy dems want to devalue the currency, turn schools into queer conversion therapy, and make everything about race I will vote for anyone keeping them out.
You are the cultist who thinks everyone not towing the party line is wrong.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 1 year ago, 3 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,288,847
@previous (C)
Ok, Trump has openly said that he wants to end the constitution and be president for life. He has called immigrants not human and vermin. He has praised the world's worst dictators. How is any of that better than Biden? Biden is not great, sure, but Trump wants to end the constitution.
Ok, Trump has openly said that he wants to end the constitution and be president for life. He has called immigrants not human and vermin. He has praised the world's worst dictators. How is any of that better than Biden? Biden is not great, sure, but Trump wants to end the constitution.
Anonymous A (OP) double-posted this 1 year ago, 31 seconds later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,288,848
@1,288,846 (C)
And no one wants to turn schools into "queer conversion therapy". That is absurd. You have not a shred of evidence for such a ridiculous claim.
And no one wants to turn schools into "queer conversion therapy". That is absurd. You have not a shred of evidence for such a ridiculous claim.
Anonymous C replied with this 1 year ago, 9 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,288,850
@previous (A)
I went to public school and saw it firsthand, teachers and their unions have free reign to derail academics to preach their leftist cult beliefs.
I went to public school and saw it firsthand, teachers and their unions have free reign to derail academics to preach their leftist cult beliefs.
Anonymous D joined in and replied with this 1 year ago, 2 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,288,852
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 1 year ago, 3 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,288,854
@1,288,850 (C)
No, you did not see "queer conversion therapy". Are you saying that all your teachers were psychologists who spent all day trying to turn straight students gay? that is an absurd claim.
No, you did not see "queer conversion therapy". Are you saying that all your teachers were psychologists who spent all day trying to turn straight students gay? that is an absurd claim.
Anonymous A (OP) double-posted this 1 year ago, 15 seconds later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,288,855
Anonymous C replied with this 1 year ago, 5 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,288,858
@1,288,854 (A)
Teachers will spend half of classtime talking about queer expression and their personal lives, instead of focusing on the textbook yeah.
The point is to "start a discussion" which helps them identify which students to make their friends and which students need to be watched for wrongthink. The NEA protects them in case a parent asks why they aren't teaching the actual material.
Teachers will spend half of classtime talking about queer expression and their personal lives, instead of focusing on the textbook yeah.
The point is to "start a discussion" which helps them identify which students to make their friends and which students need to be watched for wrongthink. The NEA protects them in case a parent asks why they aren't teaching the actual material.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 1 year ago, 53 seconds later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,288,859
@previous (C)
lol no, they do not. Teachers teach their subject matter in class. If they spent 50% of all class time talking about queer people, then all students would fail standardized tests and parents would absolutely be in an uproar. It would be on the worldwide news. It is simply not true.
lol no, they do not. Teachers teach their subject matter in class. If they spent 50% of all class time talking about queer people, then all students would fail standardized tests and parents would absolutely be in an uproar. It would be on the worldwide news. It is simply not true.
Anonymous A (OP) double-posted this 1 year ago, 58 seconds later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,288,860
@1,288,858 (C)
Also, nice goalpost moving. You said that all teachers and all classes are "queer conversation therapy". Now you backed down to "50% of call class time is spent talking about queers". What's next?
Also, nice goalpost moving. You said that all teachers and all classes are "queer conversation therapy". Now you backed down to "50% of call class time is spent talking about queers". What's next?
Anonymous C replied with this 1 year ago, 5 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,288,862
@1,288,859 (A)
Academic performance is very low in the US right now, and there are many teachers who turn it into a space where they can rant about whatever is on their mind and start a class discussion about "contemporary social issues" which just means repeating liberal cliches.
Academic performance is very low in the US right now, and there are many teachers who turn it into a space where they can rant about whatever is on their mind and start a class discussion about "contemporary social issues" which just means repeating liberal cliches.
Anonymous C double-posted this 1 year ago, 1 minute later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,288,863
@1,288,860 (A)
When kids grow up being the captive audience to the ramblings of a class of queer intelligentsia it does turn into a form of conversion therapy. Kids repeat whatever is being pushed on them, and say whatever gets a positive reaction from the authority figure in the room.
When kids grow up being the captive audience to the ramblings of a class of queer intelligentsia it does turn into a form of conversion therapy. Kids repeat whatever is being pushed on them, and say whatever gets a positive reaction from the authority figure in the room.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 1 year ago, 56 seconds later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,288,864
@1,288,862 (C)
@previous (C)
I want you to cite reliable sources that all public school teachers devote 50% of all class time to talking about queer people.
@previous (C)
I want you to cite reliable sources that all public school teachers devote 50% of all class time to talking about queer people.
Anonymous C replied with this 1 year ago, 6 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,288,865
@previous (A)
How do you think that study would even work? Teachers are going to act very different when someone is in the class monitoring them.
Anyone that has been in public school would experience it, and no teacher is going to admit they waste classtime they'll always downplay it as just a comment or discussion that happened to touch on queer issues.
Why are states passing laws to ban this if it isn't happening? And why are liberals fuming about these laws if it doesn't happen to begin with?
How do you think that study would even work? Teachers are going to act very different when someone is in the class monitoring them.
Anyone that has been in public school would experience it, and no teacher is going to admit they waste classtime they'll always downplay it as just a comment or discussion that happened to touch on queer issues.
Why are states passing laws to ban this if it isn't happening? And why are liberals fuming about these laws if it doesn't happen to begin with?
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 1 year ago, 2 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,288,866
Anonymous C replied with this 1 year ago, 2 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,288,869
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 1 year ago, 7 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,288,875
@previous (C)
Are you aware that principals know exactly what their teachers teach in class? You are so full of shit lol
Are you aware that principals know exactly what their teachers teach in class? You are so full of shit lol
Anonymous C replied with this 1 year ago, 7 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,288,879
@previous (A)
Principals can't fire bad teachers because the union is too strong. If they tried to fire a teacher for talking about queer issues the principal would be ousted.
Principals can't fire bad teachers because the union is too strong. If they tried to fire a teacher for talking about queer issues the principal would be ousted.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 1 year ago, 1 minute later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,288,882
Anonymous C replied with this 1 year ago, 2 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,288,884
@previous (A)
Not even close.
If you want to know what that actually means: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman
Not even close.
If you want to know what that actually means: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 1 year ago, 1 minute later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,288,886
Anonymous C replied with this 1 year ago, 3 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,288,888
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 1 year ago, 3 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,288,890
Anonymous E joined in and replied with this 1 year ago, 2 hours later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,288,902
Calm down and go sleep it off Matt.
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU replied with this 1 year ago, 2 hours later, 9 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,288,908
tteh !MemesToDNA joined in and replied with this 1 year ago, 2 hours later, 11 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,288,916
Anonymous G joined in and replied with this 1 year ago, 8 hours later, 20 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,289,062
@1,288,850 (C)
> I went to public school and saw it firsthand, teachers and their unions have free reign to derail academics to preach their leftist cult beliefs.
you are mentally ill
> I went to public school and saw it firsthand, teachers and their unions have free reign to derail academics to preach their leftist cult beliefs.
you are mentally ill
Anonymous C replied with this 1 year ago, 4 minutes later, 20 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,289,063
@previous (G)
> The party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command.
> The party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command.
Anonymous G replied with this 1 year ago, 1 minute later, 20 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,289,064
@previous (C)
> > The party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command.
im a democrat because i think you're mentally ill? now I know you're mentally ill
> > The party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command.
im a democrat because i think you're mentally ill? now I know you're mentally ill