TakeYouToTasker

That's because the President isn't a racist, and he has no obligation to acknowledge, and thereby legitimize, people who go out of their way to portray him as such in an effort to undermine him. This President has done more for minorities than any other in my lifetime, and has done so against a backdrop of other individual's hatred towards him. That's a mark of character.

That's an intellectually dishonest hit piece which seeks to find racism as it's primary goal, and as a result chooses to use a racist lens to view everything, rather than seeking proper context. It's not at all objective, and doesn't try to be. The goal is to convince the reader that the President is a racist, not to identify the truth. But then, you aren't interested in truth, you're interested in division and hatred.

It will also be the working title of the next Stormy Daniels movie.

"Aunt Tommi."

Document the evidence that the President is a racist. This is nothing more than an ugly fiat declaration based on nothing more than your desire to disparage someone with whom you have political differences. By "empowers" I have to assume you mean "aren't willing to violate the rights of"; which is just another way of saying you're the type of person who believes the government should prosecute thought crimes, and finds no value in human freedom. Your argument isn't compelling. Do you mean "supports the human rights or the most vulnerable people on the planet?" Any position staked out atop a mountain of aborted humans isn't one grounded in morality. That's pretty easy to visualize. As you well know, ideology is not a transitive property. Just because disparate groups support one narrow idea does not somehow comingle and conjoin the rest of their ideas. Unless you mean to say that because you and I both feel that it's not acceptable to murder you, you and I are ideologically the same, and you can justly be labeled as my ideological brethren. This is nothing more than a special pleading (logical fallacy) argument seeking to excuse the bad behavior of those who show up to protest white supremacist organizations. White supremacists, as distasteful as they may be, are perfectly free to espouse their ideas, and should be able to do so without threat of physical violence against them. If the "short skirt" defense is wrong for rapists (and it is), so is your defense of violence against white supremacists. It's not mutually exclusive.

If the juror passing the note's skill with language resembles anything I've seen on this board, I'm not comfortable weighing in on intent. I know what the English language dictates it should mean, which is exactly what you've described, but people are morons.

There seems to be a divergence in how this is being interpreted. Some are interpreting it as the jury saying they cannot come to a consensus "on even a single count"; others as "we have a consensus on all but one."

It's being reported that the average adult in Venezuela has lost 30 lbs, and that the flood of refugees over the border into Brazil and the anger of the Brazilian locals at this reality is leading to wide scale violence along the Brazil/Venezuela border.

"Trump attacks sovereign debt markets."

It's becoming quite obvious that you are unaware that "terrorism" has a specific definition, and that you are substituting "Something bad and scary that is inflicted lots of people by another person/people" for that definition.

What did I say that was unclear to you?

Oh, I see what you're doing here. You're labeling things that aren't terrorist attacks as terrorist attacks in order to make a non-point. Well done.

Can you provide a list?

What I care about is keeping this board readable, and fun. You're ruining that by turning every single thread into your nonsense. Again, no one here cares about the stupid stuff you post. People are perfectly free to be wrong, have terrible opinions, and demonstrate just how dumb they are by articulating those positions. To those ends, you're actually doing the board a public service by openly declaring yourself to be a moron. The thing is, the board's owners want the board to be readable, and to be a place where people can discuss a wide variety of ideas, and not have every single thread overrun by one moron who insists on being the center of attention. This is why they created a TOS that specifically says not to do what you're doing, and makes it a bannable offense. So, if you're truly interested in continuing to make your argument do it in it's own thread, otherwise there's a pretty good shot you'll be banned for violating the board's TOS, and will likely have your posts deleted, making it as if you were never here, and your argument will never be read by anyone. Follow the rules here, and you'll be fine. Continue to ruin the board experience for everyone else, and well...

No one cares about the stupid **** you post. We care that you're mucking up every single thread with it, disabling productive conversation in the process, and violating the boards TOS. Just keep your !@#$ing garbage in it's own thread, and no one will care.

Translated: "I am a bad actor's wet dream. I believe, whole heartedly, in the narrative I am fed by major media outlets at the behest of their handlers within the CIA, even while that narrative changes drastically to accommodate the lies they've been feeding me as those lies have been slowly and steadily exposed. Further, I refuse to think for myself, and will always conform to my confirmation biases, even as official primary sources disseminated by Congress and the judiciary emerge as evidence which contradicts my position; and whenever possible, I will refuse to read that evidence, and instead will work to equate real and voluminous evidence of widespread malfeasance with the ramblings of a racist because I'm too intellectually lazy to do anything else." I can't imagine a type of person I have less respect for.

Who, in our federal government, enjoys the "power of the purse"? Just how do you people think our government is run? Is civics really not a !@#$ing thing any more?

^ Excusing genocide Genocide. Actual genocide. He's excusing it. Remember that the next time he talks.

I love how this became a "let's make excuses for genocide" thread. I mean, never mind the fact that the white landowners in South Africa today aren't the originators of apartheid, but rather ended it, empowering the black community there. Let's justify genocide today because of the actions of different people, decades ago.

This little post had roast beef.

To summarize: Individuals who support our President in working through age old geopolitical minefields in order to conduct vital, and Constitutionally mandated, diplomacy with rival global powers; and don't mind that fact that the same President doesn't use the United States military for photo ops to propagandize are garbage. Me thinks someone's moral compass is resting on a bar magnet.

This is exactly what 34 is arguing in favor of, and attacking the current President for not doing.

It's a photo op used to link the President directly to the national popularity of the rank and file for the purpose of propagandizing to general population. Full stop. Why do you think presidents should use our service men and women as tools of electoral math?

So you think presidents should use the military, and military operations, for photo ops in order to propagandize? Why?