Donald Trump 2018

[Brisketexan 105093]

We finally found something that even the evangelicals can't support from Trump.  I'm legitimately stunned at this:
 

More than two dozen of the largest religious groups in the U.S. are imploring the Trump administration to change its "zero tolerance" policy that leads to children being separated from parents caught illegally crossing the border.

And during an interview with the Christian Broadcasting Network this week, Franklin Graham, a staunch supporter of President Donald Trump, said the practice of separating families was “disgraceful.”

The growing list of religious leaders and organizations writing letters and making statements includes several leading evangelical churches and institutions, which often align themselves with Republicans politically.

"As evangelical Christians guided by the Bible, one of our core convictions is that God has established the family as the fundamental building block of society. The state should separate families only in the rarest of instances,” Russell Moore, President of the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention, and other evangelical leaders wrote in a group letter to the White House.

 

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/religious-leaders-implore-trump-white-house-stop-separating/story?id=55905666

Those guys can eat a dick in hell.

They happily cheered on Trump fomenting this hatred of the other - they don’t get to say “now you’ve gone too far.” They fucking signed up for the Trump train knowing this destination was inevitable, they get to stay on board as it goes over the cliff.

[Hornius Emeritus 12456]

1 hour ago, Aphelion said:

 

These are not easily verifiable statements.  What are the verifiable/quantifiable things have that happened or will happen as a result of Trump that will lead to permanent significant harm or destruction of the US?

 

 

 

A massive increase in both deficits and the debt.

[Guest]

6 hours ago, jimmyjazz said:

Next Thursday.

I realize you're "just asking questions".  You're transparent, and wholly disingenuous.

What motives do you think I have?

 

6 hours ago, DixonHur said:

If you've been conscious during the last 18 months and don't think there's a problem....you might be a Trumpkin.

I didn't vote for Trump.  I wish he wasn't the president.  I don't care if he dies tomorrow from a heart attack.  I would like to split the executive branch into three consuls so we never have a president again.  Also, I never said there wasn't a problem.  Does this make me a Trumpkin?  

 

6 hours ago, TornACL said:

Are you sure you're talking about Kim and not Trump?

It's not quantifiable or a verifiable fact to suggest that Trump goes against the norms and values upon which this country was founded. Because when you make that statement, the other side moves the goalposts. So are you suggesting it's not worthy of discussion because it's not effective?

By the way, your understanding of negotiations is, to put it nicely, quite basic.

I'm not saying it's not worthy of discussion.  I think the form of discussion should move more towards statements that are engageable and verifiable.  I agree that Trump is deepening the divide among groups in our nation.  I also think Obama did this to a lesser degree.  I think it would be better and more convincing (slowly over time) to state issues in more explicit ways that are verifiable.  Blanket statements such as "Trump is Hitler" or "Trump is ruining America" are not easy to engage and are easily dismissed.  

Stating that flattery is a common form of manipulation means I don't understand negotiations?  

 

6 hours ago, TornACL said:

If you were legitimately trying to "better understand", you wouldn't put so many qualifications around it.

Remove the qualifications and address the questions however you see fit.  There's no reason to read any pro-Trump motives into my questions.  

 

5 hours ago, TornACL said:

Also, so long as no quantifiable or permanent damage is done to the country, we're all wasting our time, apparently. So long as we all have our same jobs and lifestyle in 2020, it's ok that Trump publicly adores dictators. Because he's just trying to flatter them. He's the first person in human history to come up with that negotiation strategy, all our other previous world leaders were too dumb to think of it. If only Bush, Clinton, Bush, or Obama had just said nice things to the Kim Jong Il or Un, this all would have been put to bed decades ago.

4-D chess, for sure.

Why the deliberate misrepresentation? 

Edited June 15, 2018 by Guest

[SmokeyTheBear 5562]

So. Many. Questions?

['stache 21801]

10 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Those guys can eat a dick in hell.

They happily cheered on Trump fomenting this hatred of the other - they don’t get to say “now you’ve gone too far.” They fucking signed up for the Trump train knowing this destination was inevitable, they get to stay on board as it goes over the cliff.
 

I agree.  But if they can come together and convince dear leader to stop separating families and caging children I'm all for letting them follow through on this one.  I can lament their hypocrisy in another context.

[wildcat09 29349]

45 minutes ago, Mojo Hand said:

The US isn't going to end up in any significant way like Nazi Germany, but the main reason for that is the resistance to Trump from independents and the left — that is, the very people raising these concerns precisely because they are accurate with respect to Trump and his cult followers.   And what Trump is already doing within the system, between elections, is already bad enough by the standards of our American ideals.   The existing child internment camps and family separations on the border is absolutely despicable. 

There was plenty of opposition to the nazis within Germany. The nazi party never won a majority of votes in any election, yet took total control of government because their opposition was fractured.

Sounds familiar, doesn't it?

[bolverk 29659]

1 hour ago, Aphelion said:

These are statements on what you believe Trump is trying to accomplish.   I used to hear similar such speculations from folks on what Obama was trying to accomplish.  These type of statements are impossible to falsify.  

I'm asking what things you believe will happen that can be verified.  "People seem more polarized" is not an easily verifiable statement.  "Unemployment will increase by 5% by 2020" is an easily verifiable prediction.

 

These are not easily verifiable statements.  What are the verifiable/quantifiable things have that happened or will happen as a result of Trump that will lead to permanent significant harm or destruction of the US?

 

Is your prediction that the US is going to create concentration camps or invade our neighboring nations like the nazis?

1

Quantifiable? Like, I think American influence in East Asia will decline by 45.7% and will fall 28.2% in Europe? That kind of quantifiable? Eighteen percent of Americans in the future will have lost confidence in the institution and norms of our democracy? Once the effect of tariffs fall into place and multiple trade wars have begun, economic growth will shrink to -13.4%? Twenty-nine percent of male Anglos between the ages of 25 and 34 will join White Nationalist movements by 2022? Hate crimes against minorities and immigrants will increase by 115% over the next five years?

Get the fuck out of here. People are honestly trying to express their concerns but you turn around and try to peg them to a specific "quantifiable" prediction so that you can argue details. While I have no earthly idea if the figures I propose above are precisely accurate, I'm fairly fucking confident my guesses tend to point toward an accurate direction of trends.

[wildcat09 29349]

35 minutes ago, Aphelion said:

When will the concentration camps that exterminate its residents become active?  

 

"Ok he's already making concentration camps for people he doesn't want in the country, but he hasn't begun exterminating people in them" is not comforting. The time to be concerned that he will exterminate people in those camps is before he starts, not after. 

[TornACL 7698]

8 minutes ago, Aphelion said:

I'm not saying it's not worthy of discussion.  I think the form of discussion should move more towards statements that are engageable and verifiable.  I agree that Trump is deepening the divide among groups in our nation.  I also think Obama did this to a lesser degree.  I think it would be better and more convincing (slowly over time) to state issues in more explvits ways that are verifiable.  Blanket statements such as "Trump is Hitler" or "Trump is ruining America" are not easy to engage and are easily dismissed.  

Stating that flattery is a common form of manipulation means I don't understand negotiations?  

 

I gave you a long list of topics to discuss, and you selected one of them, the Kim/Trump thing. Why did you only select one of them?

You've clearly made your point that blanket statements are not worthy of discussion, and on that I agree. But you've also been presented with a number of statements that fill your request, and you've ignored all of them.

Get to your fucking point.

[ChuckNorrisActionJeans 2663]

Lol at the assertion that Trump is flattering KJU in TV interviews as a negotiating tactic.

Guess he likes to use that tactic only on awesome guys like Putin, Duterte, and Erdogan.  Not on actual allies. 

Makes sense. He's a gotdamned genius. 

[TornACL 7698]

43 minutes ago, Aphelion said:

When will the concentration camps that exterminate its residents become active?  

The reason I ask is because if no date or even a vague timeline is given then the prediction is not verifiable. 

How did I miss this earlier?

Seriously, get the fuck out of here you piece of \shit.

[Jack Straw 2954]

5 hours ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

They are not bad people and they can be persuaded if carefully challenged.  

We should pull these people closer in instead of pushing them away.  By rejecting them outright, we are only reinforcing their warped binary “us vs them” worldview and exacerbating the problem.

We should ask them questions and listen but don’t placate them.  Ask them how they think Trump contributes to forming a better society.  Ask them the hard questions and see where the conversation goes.

 

 

Eh, this sounds nice in theory, but Trump supporters are bad people by virtue of that support - it is absolutely dispositive to their character.  I view Trump supporters, at this juncture, in the same way I view pedophiles - I wouldn't want to be around one, they should be ostracized by society, and frankly, i wouldn't lend a glass of water to one if it were in my hand and they were on fire in front of me.

[Tom 2959]

11 minutes ago, Aphelion said:

What motives do you think I have?

 

I didn't vote for Trump.  I wish he wasn't the president.  I don't care if he dies tomorrow from a heart attack.  I would like to split the executive branch into three consuls so we never have a president again.  Also, I never said there wasn't a problem.  Does this make me a Trumpkin?  

 

I'm not saying it's not worthy of discussion.  I think the form of discussion should move more towards statements that are engageable and verifiable.  I agree that Trump is deepening the divide among groups in our nation.  I also think Obama did this to a lesser degree.  I think it would be better and more convincing (slowly over time) to state issues in more explvits ways that are verifiable.  Blanket statements such as "Trump is Hitler" or "Trump is ruining America" are not easy to engage and are easily dismissed.  

Stating that flattery is a common form of manipulation means I don't understand negotiations?  

 

Remove the qualifications and address the questions however you see fit.  There's no reason to read any pro-Trump motives into my questions.  

 

Why the deliberate misrepresentation? 

 

I'm continually amazed at how many people who claim they didn't vote for Trump and claim they don't like him carry his water and argue against every criticism pointed at him.

 

We see through your bullshit.  You're not fooling anyone.

[UTCzech III 2907]

19 hours ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

 

All in.

 

[Mojo Hand 4580]

3 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

There was plenty of opposition to the nazis within Germany. The nazi party never won a majority of votes in any election, yet took total control of government because their opposition was fractured.

Sounds familiar, doesn't it?

Not even slightly.   Hitler became immensely popular after taking over.  See, for example, http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/the-fuehrer-myth-how-hitler-won-over-the-german-people-a-531909.html.  Trump has only gotten less popular.  And the opposition to Trump isn't all that fractured.   Dems are flipping Trump districts across the country. 

I'm not saying that there aren't striking similarities between the movements themselves.  The opposition is right about the potential of the Trump movement in a vacuum, and right to raise concerns about it.  But precisely because we understand that, we aren't going to let that happen. 

[wildcat09 29349]

Just now, Jack Straw said:

Eh, this sounds nice in theory, but Trump supporters are bad people by virtue of that support - it is absolutely dispositive to their character.  I view Trump supporters, at this juncture, in the same way I view pedophiles - I wouldn't want to be around one, they should be ostracized by society, and frankly, i wouldn't lend a glass of water to one if it were in my hand and they were on fire in front of me.

The rest of the thread should be read too. Trying to build bridges sounds nice, but we know what happens when you try to build bridges with fascists.

[YChang 3443]

The whole premise that it's only a perception and somehow that it's not a big deal... well we are human beings. Perceptions matter a lot... and eventually perceptions seeps into how one thinks... and that will eventually translate into behavior. 

[Guest]

23 minutes ago, SmokeyTheBear said:

So. Many. Questions?

I've found that the best way to better understand what people are thinking is to ask them questions.  

 

19 minutes ago, bolverk said:

Quantifiable? Like, I think American influence in East Asia will decline by 45.7% and will fall 28.2% in Europe? That kind of quantifiable? Eighteen percent of Americans in the future will have lost confidence in the institution and norms of our democracy? Once the effect of tariffs fall into place and multiple trade wars have begun, economic growth will shrink to -13.4%? Twenty-nine percent of male Anglos between the ages of 25 and 34 will join White Nationalist movements by 2022? Hate crimes against minorities and immigrants will increase by 115% over the next five years?

Get the fuck out of here. People are honestly trying to express their concerns but you turn around and try to peg them to a specific "quantifiable" prediction so that you can argue details. While I have no earthly idea if the figures I propose above are precisely accurate, I'm fairly fucking confident my guesses tend to point toward an accurate direction of trends.

Yes, those are types of quantifiable predictions (although I don't know how you would quantify "influence").  

 

14 minutes ago, TornACL said:

I gave you a long list of topics to discuss, and you selected one of them, the Kim/Trump thing. Why did you only select one of them?

You've clearly made your point that blanket statements are not worthy of discussion, and on that I agree. But you've also been presented with a number of statements that fill your request, and you've ignored all of them.

Get to your fucking point.

I'm responding to lots of replies so I didn't get to every point made.  This may sound crazy to you but I really am trying to better understand folks thoughts.  Beyond that my only point is that it would be better have arguments that are explicit.  Statements such as "this leader is ruining the nation" or "get the fuck out of here" may feel good to write, but they are not great discussion starters.    

 

11 minutes ago, TornACL said:

How did I miss this earlier?

Seriously, get the fuck out of here you piece of \shit.

I honestly have no idea what you think I meant by that statement. 

Edited June 15, 2018 by Guest

[Nice Guy Eddie 13509]

Trump to the media today:  "Maybe Flynn lied, maybe he didn't.  Some say he didn't lie."

Facts

• Trump fired Flynn for lying to Pence.
• Flynn pleaded guilty for lying to investigators.

 

...and if there is a scenario where Flynn did NOT lie to Pence, then that means Pence blatantly lied to the American public.  It could very well be that both happened but there isn't a scenario where Flynn and Pence both told the truth.

Edited June 15, 2018 by Nice Guy Eddie

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

13 minutes ago, Jack Straw said:

Eh, this sounds nice in theory, but Trump supporters are bad people by virtue of that support - it is absolutely dispositive to their character.  I view Trump supporters, at this juncture, in the same way I view pedophiles - I wouldn't want to be around one, they should be ostracized by society, and frankly, i wouldn't lend a glass of water to one if it were in my hand and they were on fire in front of me.

We live in a different bubble than most Trump supporters, we have to acknowledge this first.

Most Trump supporters in my community are not informed and if they think they are, they are very misinformed.

They wake up, go to their job, listen to Limbaugh on the radio in the afternoon, coach little league for their kids in the afternoon, go home, eat dinner and watch Hannity before they go to bed. They also contribute to the community through churches and civic organizations.

They’ve been doing this for the last 10+ years with no real visible consequences to their community or lifestyle. 

I have a difficult time vilifying these folks who are just trying to live the American Dream without any external conflicts.

Edited June 15, 2018 by Hugo Stiglitz

[TornACL 7698]

Quote

I honestly have no idea what you think I meant by that statement. 

Clearly you don't have much of an idea about anything, you disingenuous piece of shit. Not only does it feel good to say, but in your case it's 100% accurate. Fuck off.

[MaybeACoordinator 8349]

Who was Aphelion in a previous life on here? Is he a bot? Is he a troll? Can we quantify how much of a troll he is?

 

Just asking questions. 

[Mojo Hand 4580]

He sounds like Axiom of Choice from the last site, in which case he isn't a troll, just a really analytical dude.   But I don't know. 

[4th&Five 41524]

 

[TornACL 7698]

I look forward to Aphelion's return, when he laments the fact that we've resorted to childish taunts and vulgarities, because clearly we're unable to provide him quantifiable, verifiable, explicit predictions to bolster our arguments. Thus rendering our entire arguments invalid and unworthy of his time.

Sorry, I already flipped ahead a couple pages in the Imbecile Troll Playbook.

[lemonlime 5503]

What a piece of shit. Although that's way too derogatory to actual shit.

[NIUHuskies 504]

Just now, 4th&Five said:

 

Can I have Gaslighting for $800. Alex?

[TornACL 7698]

1 minute ago, 4th&Five said:

Holding children hostage to leverage negotiations on immigration reform. Absolutely disgusting. Par for the course from an absolutely disgusting human being.

[SmokeyTheBear 5562]

I'm awaiting Aphelion's feelings on this. Without questions preferably. 

[Chooky 13307]

 

[Guest]

13 minutes ago, TornACL said:

Clearly you don't have much of an idea about anything, you disingenuous piece of shit. Not only does it feel good to say, but in your case it's 100% accurate. Fuck off.

Is the fuck off limited to this thread or applied across the board?  I hope it's the former; I hate the idea that we can't be internet friends anymore.  

[Js1 85302]

6 minutes ago, 4th&Five said:

 

[Chooky 13307]

 

[Mojo Hand 4580]

Unbelievable how much and how blatabtly he lies. 

[staboner 4969]

32 minutes ago, Tom said:

 

I'm continually amazed at how many people who claim they didn't vote for Trump and claim they don't like him carry his water and argue against every criticism pointed at him.

 

We see through your bullshit.  You're not fooling anyone.

Its BS. Aphelion is just pulling a Tahoe here. lets obfuscate communications by making a long winded blah blah on whatever. They are letting our arguments remain arguments and are doing nothing but being divisive. Ignore them. 

[Bama Chick 28596]

FUCK TRUMP

(My new personal motto)

[Hank Kingsley 20914]

 

[bolverk 29659]

19 minutes ago, MaybeACoordinator said:

Who was Aphelion in a previous life on here? Is he a bot? Is he a troll? Can we quantify how much of a troll he is?

 

Just asking questions. 

 

16 minutes ago, Mojo Hand said:

He sounds like Axiom of Choice from the last site, in which case he isn't a troll, just a really analytical dude.   But I don't know. 

He's undoubtedly Axiom. I think it was admitted last week in a separate esoteric discussion about god or something.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

WASHINGTON (AP) — A company run by former officials at Cambridge Analytica, the political consulting firm brought down by a scandal over how it obtained Facebook users’ private data, has quietly been working for President Donald Trump’s 2020 re-election effort, The Associated Press has learned.

The AP confirmed that at least four former Cambridge Analytica employees are affiliated with Data Propria, a new company specializing in voter and consumer targeting work similar to Cambridge Analytica’s efforts before its collapse. The company’s former head of product, Matt Oczkowski, leads the new firm, which also includes Cambridge Analytica’s former chief data scientist.

Oczkowski denied a link to the Trump campaign, but acknowledged that his new firm has agreed to do 2018 campaign work for the Republican National Committee. Oczkowski led the Cambridge Analytica data team which worked on Trump’s successful 2016 campaign.

The AP learned of Data Propria’s role in Trump’s re-election effort as a result of conversations held with political contacts and prospective clients in recent weeks by Oczkowski. In one such conversation, which took place in a public place and was overheard by two AP reporters, Oczkowski said he and Trump’s 2020 campaign manager, Brad Parscale, were “doing the president’s work for 2020.”

In addition, a person familiar with Data Propria’s Washington efforts, who spoke on condition of anonymity to protect business relationships, confirmed to the AP that Trump-related 2020 work already had begun at the firm along the lines of Cambridge Analytica’s 2016 work.

Both Oczkowski and Parscale told the AP that no Trump re-election work by Data Propria was even planned, but confirmed that Parscale had helped Data Propria line up a successful bid on 2018 midterm polling-related work for the RNC, awarded earlier this week. Oczkowski called the contract modest.

Oczkowski had previously told the AP the firm had no intention of seeking political clients. After being informed the AP had overheard him directly discussing campaign work, he said his young company had changed course and that whatever he’d said about the 2020 campaign would have been speculative.

“I’m obviously open to any work that would become available,” Oczkowski said, noting that he and Parscale had worked together closely during Trump’s 2016 campaign.

Parscale told the AP that he has not even begun awarding contracts for the 2020 campaign, which he was appointed to manage in March.

More in spoilers 

“I am laser-focused on the 2018 midterms and holding the House and increasing our seats in the Senate,” he said. “Once we do those things, I’ll start working on re-electing President Trump.”

London-based Cambridge Analytica was accused of playing a key role in the 2014 breach of 87 million Facebook users’ personal data. The company said it did not use the information for Trump’s 2016 campaign, but some former employees have disputed that. Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg has said that it was “entirely possible” the social media data ended up being used in Russian propaganda efforts.

In May, Cambridge Analytica filed for bankruptcy and said it was “ceasing all operations.” A British investigation of Cambridge Analytica and its parent company will continue despite the shutdown, the U.K.s Information Commissioner’s office said last month.

The description of Data Propria’s efforts overheard by the AP reporters tracks closely with the services Cambridge Analytica provided to both commercial clients and Trump’s 2016 campaign, including profiling voters based on data about them in a process known as “psychography.” The technique classifies people according to their attitudes, aspirations and other psychological criteria to tailor advertisements or marketing strategies.

Oczkowski told the AP that three of the people on Data Propria’s 10-person team are Cambridge Analytica alumni, but said they were focused on campaign operations and data analysis — not behavioral psychology.

Data Propria is “not going down the psychometrics side of things,” he said.

Among the former Cambridge Analytica employees is David Wilkinson, a British citizen who was the company’s lead data scientist. During the 2016 campaign, Wilkinson helped oversee the voter data modeling that informed Trump’s focus on the Rust Belt, according to a Cambridge Analytica press release issued after the election.

Federal election law bars foreign nationals from “directing, controlling or directly or indirectly participating in the decision-making process” of U.S. campaigns. The public advocacy group Common Cause filed a complaint with the FEC in March alleging that Cambridge Analytica’s foreign employees broke that law, though the complaint did not name Wilkinson.

Oczkowski told the AP that the London-based Wilkinson is a contractor and will not be involved in Data Propria’s U.S. political work.

Another issue raised by Data Propria’s work on Trump’s re-election effort is the firm’s financial links to Parscale, Trump’s campaign manager.

Parscale is a part owner of Data Propria’s parent company, a publicly traded firm called Cloud Commerce that bought his digital marketing business in August. Over the last year, Cloud Commerce has largely rebuilt itself around Parscale’s former company, now rebranded Parscale Digital. Parscale sits on Cloud Commerce’s board of directors and provides the company with the majority of its $2.9 million in revenue, according to the company’s most recent Securities and Exchange Commission filing.

By working with a Cloud Commerce subsidiary, the Trump campaign could be helping Parscale profit beyond his $15,000 monthly campaign retainer and the commissions he has been collecting on Trump’s digital advertising spending.

While Parscale’s personal business still works for the campaign, it’s unclear how that work may be changing now that he has become Trump’s official campaign manager.

Under one contract between Parscale and Cloud Commerce, he receives a 5 percent cut of every dollar collected by Parscale Digital — which is largely composed of the web marketing business Parscale sold to Cloud Commerce last year. In SEC filings, Cloud Commerce has estimated that Parscale’s cut of those revenues, excluding pass through payments, would total between $850,000 and $1.3 million. Parscale Digital would not be directly receiving funds from the RNC or the campaign.

Even though Parscale is not directly receiving money from Data Propria work, the firms provide each other with business and Data Propria’s success would help Cloud Commerce pay off the money it owns Parscale.

A second agreement obligates Cloud Commerce to pay Parscale $85,150 a month as part of its separate $1 million purchase of his former web-hosting business. Parscale earns another $3,000 per month from leasing computers and office furniture to Cloud Commerce.

Trevor Potter, a Republican who once headed the Federal Election Commission and now leads the nonprofit Campaign Legal Center, said it was unusual for an incumbent president’s campaign to direct large amounts of business to outside firms tied to his campaign manager.

Such arrangements are more common for long-shot candidates in need of expertise, he said.

“Top-notch candidates have bargaining power and are less likely to put up with that,” Potter said. “It sounds like a very rich opportunity for Mr. Parscale, but that’s really the candidate’s call.”

Aside from the ties to Parscale, Cloud Commerce’s parent company is an unusual candidate for blue chip political work. Founded in 1999, the firm has repeatedly changed its name and business model, and the company’s most recent audit “expressed substantial doubt about our ability to continue as a going concern” without continuing infusions of cash.

An AP investigation of Cloud Commerce in March found that a former CEO of its predecessor firm pleaded guilty to stock fraud in 2008 and remained active in Cloud Commerce’s affairs until at least 2015. Cloud Commerce says the man has had no connection with its business since at least 2011.

The AP also found discrepancies in the professional biography of current Cloud Commerce chief executive Andrew Van Noy, who has told investors that he worked for Morgan Stanley and was a private equity executive in the years immediately preceding his arrival at Cloud Commerce in 2011.

Van Noy’s August 2010 Utah bankruptcy filing conflicts with that portrayal, showing he spent most of the prior two and a half years unemployed. The filings also reveal that Van Noy had been accused of selling unlicensed securities and using $100,000 of an investor’s money for personal purposes.

“Luckily I have not had to go to the homeless shelter,” Van Noy wrote to that investor in 2011 after the man asked what had happened to his investment. After the man sued for fraud, Van Noy agreed to pay him $105,000.

A year later, he became president of Cloud Commerce.

[Hank Kingsley 20914]

18 minutes ago, TornACL said:

Holding children hostage to leverage negotiations on immigration reform. Absolutely disgusting. Par for the course from an absolutely disgusting human being.

You know Trump has floated the idea that those children should build the wall before kicking them out of the country for good. 

 

[SKJ 1311]

5 hours ago, GRHorn said:

Bless your heart.  I wish you luck in your war against both non-existent fascism and internment camps.  

 

They are literally kidnapping children. I don't understand how this doesn't make you want to kill... I imagine it would have before, but you've sold your soul.

You don't fuck with kids.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

2 hours ago, Aphelion said:

Stated explicitly, what are the verifiable/quantifiable things have that happened or will happen as a result of Trump that will lead to permanent significant harm or destruction of the US?  

[4th&Five 41524]

 

[Chuckie Finster 22694]

1 minute ago, 4th&Five said:

 

He literally said "what about" in his whataboutism.  Jesus.

Not to mention the fact that Manafort wasn't even sentenced today.

 

[Tom 2959]

2 minutes ago, 4th&Five said:

 

What about Cher? 

[Pods 7551]

52 minutes ago, MaybeACoordinator said:

Who was Aphelion in a previous life on here? Is he a bot? Is he a troll? Can we quantify how much of a troll he is?

 

Just asking questions. 

sheeeit

[TornACL 7698]

Quote

top political people

Guess he was having trouble spelling politicians.

 

[lemonlime 5503]

He also doesn't understand the meaning of the word "sentence."  

[Pods 7551]

 

[retread 2951]

Actions of a totally innocent man.