Deranged Rhino

I posted this in the other thread last night -- but I'm really surprised Joe's campaign didn't take advantage of an EASY layup for them... the fact they haven't been asked yet, or commented, shows 1) how weak Joe really is and 2) how bad our political media is. No Chance Joe is very weak. Weak men don't win, not in times like these.

Imagine wasting your time as a Congressman asking this question...

And more: https://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/david-guillod-producer-arrested-11-sex-crimes-kidnap-for-rape

Another really dumb "narrative" bites the dust. Hardest hit: the mouth breathers who can't tell the difference between a joke and an actual statement. Sorry, @SoTier and others -- you once again look like massive asshats.

It means someone who talks a great deal of shite, only to then run away when called out — like a coward... You should know. You’ve been doing it for your whole life, coward.

Tomorrow will be the first real test for No Chance Joe. Shaun King’s comments about tearing down Jesus statues will have to be addressed. It’s really a layup for Joe, a large portion of those black voters in the South who gave him the win love their Jesus and churches. The smart move will be to denounce King’s position (including the equation of a white Jesus to White supremacy), stake out a middle ground. But that would mean stepping up to BLM — at least a large faction of it. So Joe will equivocate and do so poorly because he’s in cognitive decline and isn’t as charming as he once was. We will see tomorrow morning. Big moment for him if he plays it right.

This is a major story in Hollywood circles on its own. Then when you look at his connections — it gets bigger. [cue the inevitable: “He was just the writer of Kangaroo Jack]

And omits two key factors...

https://mobile.twitter.com/RedPill78/status/1275249221780877312

It’s VERY time consuming to hit an icon But it’s a never ending source of entertainment than the mouth breathers being so insulted by something so innocuous. Before they dropped the reaction options, I’d quote someone and toast them as an acknowledgment/thanks for their take. This is far easier / takes up way less space.

And now the Seattle Mayor is saying she's negotiating with "parties" to end the CHAZ

In this case, stupid did hurt.

So... then that makes the 17 errors in the Page application all the more unusual/alarming: (It was always a coup)

We're saying the same thing. You're just not appreciating that's how Trump treats reporters who ask stupid questions.

@transplantbillsfan -- moving this to a more appropriate thread... You asked me to show you where you had ever said anything wrong about Trump/Russia -- and I explained I did not have time over the weekend to dig. Rather than answer my question on your current opinion on the matter so we could cut right to the chase, you wanted to play games. So, game on. I had time today to look. And boy was it fun. Let's take a trip back through your Journey of Being Wrong from the very first day on Trump/Russia... by the time we get through this, the only question left is whether or not you will admit to being wrong as you said you would. Let's find out! Starting with, your very first PPP post on the subject in October of 2018: Note two things about this chalk-full-of-wrong post... first, you displayed no understanding of the Butina case and why it was important. What Butina showed was that despite the media narrative at the time, the only actual Russian spy deployed by Putin was identified, charged, and expelled immediately upon the changing of administrations. Not something one would expect from a "puppet" president. It also overlooks the fact that the Obama DOJ knew Butina was a Russian spook for well over a year but let her operate freely anyway... but again, details aren't important. Just feelz. But where you were demonstrably wrong was with your last statement. You imply Russia did influence the 2016 election. After the Mueller report, the OIG report, all the FBI disclosures and multiple trials and their accompanying discovery, transcripts, and testimonies, it's proven that Russia did NOT influence the election. So you literally were wrong from your first day on this topic. But that was just the start of your incredible Journey of Being Wrong... *Bolded and numbers are mine 1. This is a false statement. Per Mueller's own report, there was no evidence of collusion/conspiracy in his report. None. That was cemented by the later findings of the OIG and the disclosures from the Crossfire Hurricane team and its documents/origin point. They had an open investigation for nearly 3 years and found nada. Zip. Zero. 2. The first page of the report shows that this is incorrect. Mueller (really Weissman) makes it clear that collusion is not a legal term even though it's synonymous with conspiracy. Thus they used conspiracy, not collusion in the report. But they're the same thing. And -- guess what, he found zero evidence of it despite your first incorrect statement. Your ignorance on this topic was in FULL display early on... But there's a lot more! *Bolded and numbers are mine 1. You were wrong before about this, and you're still wrong in this post. But you're sticking to it regardless, even when others in the thread show you the excerpts in the report proving you're wrong... 2. The report was a political operation, not a legal one. Its legal findings all exonerated Trump. Fully. On both conspiracy and obstruction. You're wrong again... And yet... you were't done making sure everyone understood that you knew/know very little about this topic! You were just getting warmed up! *Bolded and numbers are mine 1. Note the weasel way you worded this one. "I never thought would be undeniably proven" -- leaving it wide open for you to argue that it happened, they just couldn't prove it. Which brings us back to the question I asked you the other day and you've been running from ever since: Do you believe Trump or his campaign colluded/conspired with the Russians to steal the 2016 election? Show the class how you're still wrong on this topic by answering that honestly. 2. Actually, we know now in light of the OIG report and the declassifications of the ICA source material, that it's proven Russia favored neither side. In fact, they ran operations designed to favor both Trump and Clinton because their goal was to sow chaos, not tilt the scales one way or the other. We know, for a fact now, that John Brennan kept the information about the Russians favoring Clinton out of the ICA in order to deceive the public. So, again, you are undeniably wrong again -- because you were lied to by the same people you're trying to defend. They lied to you because they think you're too stupid to think for yourself... and so far on your Journey of Being Wrong, they seem to be correct in that assessment. 3. In reality, it was a very weak obstruction case based on legal fantasy. It was such a weak obstruction case that it was immediately rejected -- not just by Barr but by Rod Rosenstein who was there from the very beginning of the SCO and had no loyalty to Trump whatsoever. So, you're wrong again -- but this is because you're a partisan and not thinking critically. Thus you think this is somehow subjective... it isn't. 4. "The Mueller stuff" which you got wrong every step of the way. Laughably so. 5. Ooops! Wrong again. That case got tossed in the trash by the courts. 6. Wrong again! This was one that even worked in your favor! Oh, wait, but there's more on @transplantbillsfan's ridiculously long and well documented Journey of Being Wrong. *Bolded and numbers are mine 1. What's hilarious about this one is that you admit (without really admitting) you were wrong with your very first post already highlighted above. You admit, almost a year later, that no votes were changed. Russia didn't influence the election -- despite their efforts to do so. Meddle does not = interfere. 2. Wrong all the way. He's off the hook (exonerated) and there was no additional CI investigation. That's two wrongs in one statement! 3. We know now Trump was not fully briefed on the threats. This is proven by multiple declassifications and congressional testimonies. You were wrong again -- but it sure is a nice piece of fiction to string those things together like that (while omitting the fact that what he said on stage was A) a joke and B) not right after being briefed by the FBI. Starting to see how you were programmed VERY EARLY ON? We're still not done! And to be frank, I was tuckering out at this point in my search. My sides were hurting too much from laughing at your stunning display of ignorance time and time again... so let's keep going along with you on your wonderfully ironic Journey of Being Wrong while also being super condescending! *Bolded and numbers are mine 1) A prosecutor doesn't exonerate, so Mueller's words were improper. The result of the Mueller probe was a declaration of innocence. No charges brought, no indictment. And we live in a country where we are innocent until proven guilty. Trump was found innocent in full. Even on obstruction which both RR and Barr ruled on despite Weissman's punting. 2) We in fact do know exactly what they briefed him on, and per Comey's own testimony they did not brief Trump in full deliberately. Why? Because he was a target of their CI investigation. This is not speculation, it's now proven fact. You were wrong about that and the timing of the email release. But again, why bother learning the facts when you can be lazy and let the Legacy Media tell you how to think instead? ****************************************** This is not really the end of your Journey of Being wrong, but it's a good stopping point. I'm certain there's more stupidity in the year that followed but I think 17 clear examples of times you, @transplantbillsfan were demonstrably wrong about the Trump/Russia story and its outcome is more than enough to prove my point. You were wrong from your very first day down here on this topic... And you've never copped to it. Not once. Here's your chance to remedy that.

I did watch it. That is Trump blowing him off. It's how he does it. He just talks about what he wants to talk about when they ask really stupid questions. And that was a truly, breathtakingly stupid question to ask the CiC.

Because, as I said above, why would he do anything other than bust the guy's balls for asking a stupid question that no rational person believes was a real statement... unless they get their news from the liars in the legacy media? It's war. There will be casualties.