Why on Earth Did an Ad Showing AOC’s Face Burning Air During the Debate?

  
Via:  john-russell  •  one month ago  •  75 comments

Why on Earth Did an Ad Showing AOC’s Face Burning Air During the Debate?

S E E D E D   C O N T E N T







Why on Earth Did an Ad Showing AOC’s Face Burning Air During the Debate?








12-alexandria-ocasio-cortez.w700.h700.jp

Photo: Win McNamee/Getty Images



Midway through Thursday night’s Democratic debate on ABC, the channel aired a startling ad from a Republican political action committee. The ad, purchased by the New Faces PAC, starts out with a with a still of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s official congressional portrait — then sets it on fire:

The next scene shows a heap of skulls, and then cuts to Elizabeth Heng, a  failed  Republican candidate for California’s 16th congressional district. In ominous tones, Heng, the daughter of a Cambodian dissident, recalls the violence of the Khmer Rouge regime and warns against socialism in the U.S. The implication is clear: Ocasio-Cortez, a democratic socialist, represents a real and serious threat to the U.S., and if she and other leftists grow their power, mass murder is inevitable.

It’s a uniquely odious example of an old conservative habit. But that habit isn’t merely obnoxious — it puts the congresswoman at risk, too. Ocasio-Cortez, along with other members of her left-leaning congressional “squad,” already receives a  high  number of death threats; by allowing this PAC to air an ad that links her to genocidal violence in Cambodia, ABC grants undeserved legitimacy to ideas that make her a target.

Further complicating matters, the Freedom From Religion Foundation — a legal advocacy group that promotes separation of church and state —  claims  the channel rejected two of its proposed ads for the same night. And later in its broadcast, ABC aired an ad funded by NumbersUSA, an anti-immigration organization. Political Research Associations has reported that the group’s president, Roy Beck, once  spoke  to a white nationalist group and formerly  edited   The Social Contract , a journal that puts out what the Southern Poverty Law Center  has called  “race-baiting articles penned by white nationalists.”

On Twitter, Ocasio-Cortez has already responded, noting the irony of a Republican PAC doing outreach to minorities by smearing a woman of color:

Others expressed shock at the ad, and ABC’s decision to run it:

The PAC’s ad was ostensibly meant to counter the argument that the GOP is a racist political party. But they’ll need to do more than put Elizabeth Heng in front of camera to make that argument. If they’re truly concerned about the party’s image, they haven’t exactly done their cause any favors.

Tags

jrDiscussion - desc
smarty_function_ntUser_is_admin: user_id parameter required
Find text within the comments Find 
 
JohnRussell
1  seeder  JohnRussell    one month ago

The bitch in the ad sounds a lot more violent than Alexandria Cortez ever has. 

 
 
 
Tacos!
1.1  Tacos!  replied to  JohnRussell @1    one month ago
sounds a lot more violent

In what way?

 
 
 
Greg Jones
1.2  Greg Jones  replied to  JohnRussell @1    one month ago

Get used to it John....the Republicans are not going to be so kind and gentle to the dopey Dems this time around. Campaign ads from now to election day!!!  Yippee!jrSmiley_24_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
JohnRussell
1.2.1  seeder  JohnRussell  replied to  Greg Jones @1.2    one month ago
Get used to it John....the Republicans are going to so kind this time around.

Get used to what? Incomprenhesible sentences?  I already am. 

 
 
 
Greg Jones
1.2.2  Greg Jones  replied to  JohnRussell @1.2.1    one month ago

If you think this was bad, just wait to see what's coming for AOC and all the leftist losers.

They have learned all the dirty tricks the Dems emply and won't hesitate to use them

As you can see, I chose to revise and extend by remarks.

 
 
 
squiggy
1.3  squiggy  replied to  JohnRussell @1    one month ago

Yea, that’s sensationalism. Alexandria Concentration Camp Ortez’ razor sharp bullshit detector pinged on that one.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
1.4  Sean Treacy  replied to  JohnRussell @1    one month ago

How does pointing out the fact that socialists have killed millions make one violent?

 
 
 
JohnRussell
1.4.1  seeder  JohnRussell  replied to  Sean Treacy @1.4    one month ago

which of these countries have killed millions of people

Of these nations, the countries that have a socialist party that serves as a governing party are:

  • Armenia
  • Bolivia
  • Ecuador
  • Iceland
  • Nicaragua
  • Northern  Ireland
  • Portugal
  • Serbia
  • Venezuela

There are democratic socialist parties located all around the world. The nations that have socialist parties include:

 
 
 
 
Greg Jones
1.5  Greg Jones  replied to  JohnRussell @1    one month ago

These go back a ways, but shows the left shouldn't be playing the virtue card.

http://www.zombietime.com/zomblog/?p=621

 
 
 
JohnRussell
2  seeder  JohnRussell    one month ago
AbHcStkl_normal.jpg
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez
@AOC

Republicans are running TV ads setting pictures of me on fire to convince people they aren’t racist.

Life is weird!

AbHcStkl_normal.jpg
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez
@AOC

Know that this wasn’t an ad for young conservatives of color - that was the pretense.

What you just watched was a love letter to the GOP’s white supremacist case. https:// twitter.com/aoc/status/117 2322668038647814 

 
 
 
Tacos!
3  Tacos!    one month ago

Seems like an ordinary political ad. Is this supposed to be upsetting or something?

 
 
 
JohnRussell
3.1  seeder  JohnRussell  replied to  Tacos! @3    one month ago

Setting your political opponents face on fire and accusing her of supporting mass murder are "ordinary" to you. 

You have an extremely high tolerance for anything from the right. It's always "who cares" or "whats the big deal"?

I think I'll say that the next time you object to Trump being criticized. 

 
 
 
Greg Jones
3.1.1  Greg Jones  replied to  JohnRussell @3.1    one month ago

You and others here have accused Trump of things much worse, because of mindless hate.

Now that hate is coming home to roost in your chicken house.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
3.1.2  seeder  JohnRussell  replied to  Greg Jones @3.1.1    one month ago

The only thing I accuse Trump of is being a crook, liar, bigot and moron. All of those descriptions are provable. 

I dont think he is a mass murderer. 

 
 
 
MUVA
3.1.3  MUVA  replied to  JohnRussell @3.1    one month ago

No pushing grandma off the Cliff is normal

 
 
 
Tacos!
3.1.4  Tacos!  replied to  JohnRussell @3.1    one month ago
Setting your political opponents face on fire

No, they set a picture of her on fire. No one set her face on fire. Burning photos are a pretty common dramatic technique and you'd have to be deeply stupid to think this ad was advocating lighting a person on fire.

You want to guess how many times Trump has been burned in effigy or had his picture burned? Does that bother you, too? Or only when it happens to Democrats?

161105-donald-trump-effigy-mn-1800_f5e56

Palestinians-Burn-U.S.-Flags-And-Picture

dump_trump1.jpg_1718483346.jpg

accusing her of supporting mass murder

No, it didn't do that either. jrSmiley_85_smiley_image.gif It accused her of supporting policies that can lead - and have led - to mass murder. I believe most people who are critical of socialist-leaning politicians have concluded that people like AOC haven't thought through the consequences of the policies they advocate. That's very different than saying someone supports mass murder.

How many times has Trump been equated to Hitler? Millions, I would guess. Does that bother you?

trump-getty.jpg?w968h681

B6RMWFOT6CFYKP5Y3X7D6N5B3U.jpg

You have an extremely high tolerance for anything from the right

Should we really go over the things you tolerate? Like the stuff I just mentioned?

 
 
 
JohnRussell
3.1.5  seeder  JohnRussell  replied to  Tacos! @3.1.4    one month ago

So if I post some stuff on this forum right now about Trump being a murderer, Hitler , or whatever, it will be fine with you, because "who cares?"  Right?  Is that a promise? 

 
 
 
Jack_TX
3.1.6  Jack_TX  replied to  JohnRussell @3.1.2    one month ago
I dont think he is a mass murderer.

Soooo....  All these Hitler comparisons, then?

 
 
 
Tacos!
3.1.7  Tacos!  replied to  JohnRussell @3.1.5    one month ago

No, because nobody said AOC was a murderer. That was something you made up. Also, nobody called her Hitler. The whole point was that all these things are said about Trump and you applaud them, but someone makes a much milder ad against AOC and you lose your mind.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
3.1.8  seeder  JohnRussell  replied to  Tacos! @3.1.7    one month ago

I am pretty sure I have never posted or agreed with a meme showing Trump as Hitler. 

He is more like something we would see in an American political satire movie about a con man who is a liar, crook, bigot and moron but gets to the top of American politics anyway. 

We havent quite seen that movie yet though because the plot is too insane even for Hollywood. 

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
3.1.9  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  Tacos! @3.1.4    one month ago
How many times has Trump been equated to Hitler?

Trump is not Hitler after he started murdering millions of innocent people, but he certainly emulates Hitler during his rise to power blaming the immigrants and Jews for all of the native born Germans financial woes.

I really can't imagine how Trump supporters do not see all the similarities. [Deleted]

 
 
 
Tacos!
3.1.10  Tacos!  replied to  JohnRussell @3.1.8    one month ago
I am pretty sure I have never posted or agreed with a meme showing Trump as Hitler. 

Memes? I don't know about that, but if you want to include comments, I would say you have supported the comparison somewhat. I'll let you speak for yourself of course, but here are comments of yours that I think at least indicated some support for the practice of equating Trump with Hitler. I'm not great with the search function on this site, so I won't claim these are the most supportive available. What I definitely don't see is the kind of heartfelt condemnation of the idea that we see from you here about the AOC ad.

First

Second

 
 
 
Jack_TX
3.1.11  Jack_TX  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @3.1.9    one month ago
They refuse to see all Trumps flaws.

There are some, but exceedingly few in that category.

Most simply consider Trump as the only thing standing between them and Bernie/Warren/AOC destroying the country.

But this "defending all presidential flaws" precedent was set in the 1990s.  I have zero patience for people who want to talk about Trump's adultery when they defended Clinton's.  You either care about adultery or you don't.  

Setting an example?  Well...my 4-year-old (at the time) daughter asked me what a "Lewinsky" was.  One of my friends had to field questions from his 9-year-old daughter about why someone would insert a cigar in themselves and what exactly was on that blue dress.  So as far as role models go, that ship sailed a while ago.  We've just been spoiled because we went through 2 presidents who were stand up guys and we've forgotten what this shit is like.

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
3.1.12  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  Jack_TX @3.1.11    one month ago
I have zero patience for people who want to talk about Trump's adultery when they defended Clinton's.  You either care about adultery or you don't.

So you have no problem defending a serial adulterer today because somebody did the same 25 years ago? Do you always allow others to dictate your moral fortitude? Do you really imagine being asked what a "Lewinsky" was should justify having to explain Stormy Daniels and why some refuse to believe the 19 different women who have accused Trump of sexual assault or Trumps own words that he doesn't "even wait" for consent and just grabs women by their genitals? If Republicans had a tape of Bill Clinton saying those same exact words they would be playing them non-stop in outrage condemning Democrats of supporting such immoral filth. But today, all they can muster is a weak "Well you had a President nearly 25 years ago who cheated on his wife too! So there!". The attempt at "immoral equivalence" is pretty sad.

 
 
 
Tacos!
3.1.13  Tacos!  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @3.1.9    one month ago
he certainly emulates Hitler during his rise to power blaming the immigrants and Jews for all of the native born Germans financial woes

It's really not similar at all. What Trump has said about illegal immigration is well in line with what many other American politicians - Republican and Democrat - have said many times over the years. The tendency to compare such talk to Hitler and Nazi Germany is a very recent phenomenon and entirely political.

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
3.1.14  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  Tacos! @3.1.13    one month ago
It's really not similar at all.

“Watching Trump work his crowds, though, I see a dangerously manipulative narcissist unleashing the demagogic spells that he learned from studying Hitler’s speeches—spells that he cannot control and that are capable of eroding the fabric of American democracy,” author and civil rights lawyer Burt Neuborne says. “You see, we’ve seen what these rhetorical techniques can do. Much of Trump’s rhetoric—as a candidate and in office—mirrors the strategies, even the language, used by Adolf Hitler in the early 1930s to erode German democracy.”

Many Americans may seize or condemn Neuborne’s analysis, which has more than 20 major points of comparison. The author repeatedly says his goal is not “equating” the men—as “it trivializes Hitler’s obscene crimes to compare them to Trump’s often pathetic foibles.”

“Donald Trump’s tweets, often delivered between midnight and dawn, are the twenty-first century’s technological embodiment of Hitler’s free plastic radios,” Neuborne says. “Trump’s Twitter account, like Hitler’s radios, enables a charismatic leader to establish and maintain a personal, unfiltered line of communication with an adoring political base of about 30–40 percent of the population, many (but not all) of whom are only too willing, even anxious, to swallow Trump’s witches’ brew of falsehoods, half-truths, personal invective, threats, xenophobia, national security scares, religious bigotry, white racism, exploitation of economic insecurity, and a never ending-search for scapegoats.”

Both blame others and divide on racial lines. As Neuborne notes, “Hitler used his single-frequency radios to wax hysterical to his adoring base about his pathological racial and religious fantasies glorifying Aryans and demonizing Jews, blaming Jews (among other racial and religious scapegoats) for German society’s ills.” That is comparable to “Trump’s tweets and public statements, whether dealing with black-led demonstrations against police violence, white-led racist mob violence, threats posed by undocumented aliens, immigration policy generally, protests by black and white professional athletes, college admission policies, hate speech, even response to hurricane damage in Puerto Rico,” he says. Again and again, Trump uses “racially tinged messages calculated to divide whites from people of color.”

“Both Trump and Hitler maintained a relentless assault on the very idea of objective truth,” he continues. “Each began the assault by seeking to delegitimize the mainstream press. Hitler quickly coined the epithet Lügenpresse (literally ‘lying press’) to denigrate the mainstream press. Trump uses a paraphrase of Hitler’s lying press epithet—‘fake news’—cribbed, no doubt, from one of Hitler’s speeches. For Trump, the mainstream press is a ‘lying press’ that publishes ‘fake news.’” Hitler attacked his opponents as spreading false information to undermine his positions, Neuborne says, just as Trump has attacked “elites” for disseminating false news, “especially his possible links to the Kremlin.”

“Both Trump and Hitler intensified their assault on objective truth by deriding scientific experts, especially academics who question Hitler’s views on race or Trump’s views on climate change, immigration, or economics. For both Trump and Hitler, the goal is (and was) to eviscerate the very idea of objective truth, turning everything into grist for a populist jury subject to manipulation by a master puppeteer. In both Trump’s and Hitler’s worlds, public opinion ultimately defines what is true and what is false.”

“Trump’s pathological penchant for repeatedly lying about his behavior can only succeed in a world where his supporters feel free to embrace Trump’s ‘alternative facts’ and treat his hyperbolic exaggerations as the gospel truth,” Neuborne says. “Once Hitler had delegitimized the mainstream media by a series of systematic attacks on its integrity, he constructed a fawning alternative mass media designed to reinforce his direct radio messages and enhance his personal power. Trump is following the same path, simultaneously launching bitter attacks on the mainstream press while embracing the so-called alt-right media, co-opting both Sinclair Broadcasting and the Rupert Murdoch–owned Fox Broadcasting Company as, essentially, a Trump Broadcasting Network.”

“Once Hitler had cemented his personal communications link with his base via free radios and a fawning media and had badly eroded the idea of objective truth, he reinforced his emotional bond with his base by holding a series of carefully orchestrated mass meetings dedicated to cementing his status as a charismatic leader, or Führer,” Neuborne writes. “The powerful personal bonds nurtured by Trump’s tweets and Fox’s fawning are also systematically reinforced by periodic, carefully orchestrated mass rallies (even going so far as to co-opt a Boy Scout Jamboree in 2017), reinforcing Trump’s insatiable narcissism and his status as a charismatic leader.”

“Hitler’s strident appeals to the base invoked an extreme version of German nationalism, extolling a brilliant German past and promising to restore Germany to its rightful place as a preeminent nation,” Neuborne says. “Trump echoes Hitler’s jingoistic appeal to ultranationalist fervor, extolling American exceptionalism right down to the slogan ‘Make America Great Again,’ a paraphrase of Hitler’s promise to restore German greatness.”

“Hitler all but closed Germany’s borders, freezing non-Aryan migration into the country and rendering it impossible for Germans to escape without official permission. Like Hitler, Trump has also made closed borders a centerpiece of his administration,” Neuborne continues. “Hitler barred Jews. Trump bars Muslims and seekers of sanctuary from Central America. When the lower courts blocked Trump’s Muslim travel ban, he unilaterally issued executive orders replacing it with a thinly disguised substitute that ultimately narrowly won Supreme Court approval under a theory of extreme deference to the president.”

“Hitler promised to make Germany free from Jews and Slavs. Trump promises to slow, stop, and even reverse the flow of non-white immigrants, substituting Muslims, Africans, Mexicans, and Central Americans of color for Jews and Slavs as scapegoats for the nation’s ills."

“Like Hitler, Trump seeks to use national borders to protect his favored national interests, threatening to ignite protectionist trade wars with Europe, China, and Japan similar to the trade wars that, in earlier incarnations, helped to ignite World War I and World War II,” Neuborne writes.

“Hitler’s version of fascism shifted immense power—both political and financial—to the leaders of German industry. In fact, Hitler governed Germany largely through corporate executives,” he continues. “Trump has also presided over a massive empowerment—and enrichment—of corporate America. Under Trump, large corporations exercise immense political power while receiving huge economic windfalls and freedom from regulations designed to protect consumers and the labor force. Hitler despised the German labor movement, eventually destroying it and imprisoning its leaders. Trump also detests strong unions, seeking to undermine any effort to interfere with the prerogatives of management.”

“Hitler’s foreign policy rejected international cooperation in favor of military and economic coercion, culminating in the annexation of the Sudetenland, the phony Hitler-Stalin nonaggression pact, the invasion of Czechoslovakia, and the horrors of global war,” Neuborne notes. “Like Hitler, Trump is deeply hostile to multinational cooperation, withdrawing from the Trans-Pacific Partnership, the Paris Agreement on climate change, and the nuclear agreement with Iran, threatening to withdraw from the North American Free Trade Agreement, abandoning our Kurdish allies in Syria, and even going so far as to question the value of NATO, our post-World War II military alliance with European democracies against Soviet expansionism.”

https://www.commondreams.org/views/2019/08/09/leading-civil-rights-lawyer-shows-20-ways-trump-copying-hitlers-early-rhetoric-and

There are so many ways Trump is like Hitler before the war it's not even funny. Sure, neither I nor the author of this fascinating book are accusing Trump of being war time era Hitler committing genocide, but Trump certainly is using many of the same tactics Hitler used to rise to and then cling to power.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
3.1.15  Jack_TX  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @3.1.12    one month ago
So you have no problem defending a serial adulterer today because somebody did the same 25 years ago?

Do cite me saying that.  Meanwhile, don't guess what I'm thinking.  Just ask.

Do you always allow others to dictate your moral fortitude?

Do you always allow your emotions to drive you into assigning views to people who have not expressed them simply because your hatred of Trump gets the better of you?

Do cite me defending Donald Trump's immorality.  I'll wait.

Do you really imagine being asked what a "Lewinsky" was should justify having to explain Stormy Daniels and why some refuse to believe the 19 different women who have accused Trump of sexual assault

It's not about "should".  "Should" left the building with Broaddrick, Jones, Willey & co.  It is what it is.  This is the world we've created for ourselves.

Why do you believe one set of accusers and not the other?  

or Trumps own words that he doesn't "even wait" for consent and just grabs women by their genitals? If Republicans had a tape of Bill Clinton saying those same exact words they would be playing them non-stop in outrage condemning Democrats of supporting such immoral filth.

Do you suggest we should NOT be outraged by rampant sexual misconduct?  Please do make up your mind.

But today, all they can muster is a weak "Well you had a President nearly 25 years ago who cheated on his wife too! So there!". The attempt at "immoral equivalence" is pretty sad.

Sane, rational people understand that you cannot bitch about something and defend it at the same time without looking ridiculously, laughably hypocritical. 

Trump haters like to pretend they have some sort of moral high ground.  Indeed given his status as a serial adulterer among countless other moral failings, it seems incredible that they should not be able to claim that high ground.  And yet......  

Given how low the bar is set, the question would seem to be "how do you fuck up so badly that you can't establish moral superiority on Donald Trump??"  But they flushed that chance when they adamantly defended Clinton through sexual assault, repeated adultery, and then perjury.  

Frankly, they all owe Matt Lauer an apology.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
3.1.16  Jack_TX  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @3.1.14    one month ago
 “it trivializes Hitler’s obscene crimes to compare them to Trump’s often pathetic foibles.”

And there we have it.

Moving on.....

 
 
 
Tacos!
3.1.17  Tacos!  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @3.1.14    one month ago

I hope you understand, but I'm not reading all that.

neither I nor the author of this fascinating book are accusing Trump of being war time era Hitler committing genocide

Then what is the point on insisting on that particular comparison? Many politicians engage in tactics similar to what Hitler did during some point in his rise. That doesn't make the comparison meaningful. Those many other politicians didn't end up starting a world war and committing genocide.

 
 
 
KDMichigan
3.1.18  KDMichigan  replied to  Jack_TX @3.1.15    one month ago
Sane, rational people understand that you cannot bitch about something and defend it at the same time without looking ridiculously, laughably hypocritical. 

Spot on. It's like a illness. Take all the faux rage of Trump putting illegal immigrants in cages. They were ranting and raving about pictures released showing these poor people behind a chainlink cage. Then it was discovered and released that the pictures were actually taken during Obama's tenure. Liberals....."It's not the same, Trumps putting people in cages, He's like Hitler"....SMH

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
3.1.19  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  Jack_TX @3.1.15    one month ago
bitch about something and defend it at the same time

Please do show me where I defended Bill Clinton. I have said many times I did not vote for him in '92 or '96 because I believed his accusers and don't respect those who cheat on their wives even if Lewinsky was a consensual affair. So you're going to have to try again at the hypocrisy accusations.

Trump is a serial adulterer who has cheated on all three of his wives. From that alone I would never vote for such a cheating scum bag. While I don't believe the bible is divine in origin, I do believe it contains some wisdom, such as "If you are faithful in little things, you will be faithful in large ones. But if you are dishonest in little things, you won’t be honest with greater responsibilities". Trump is the most dishonest least faithful human being I know, I seriously can not think of a more prolific liar. While I was disgusted by Bill Clinton's immoral behavior, Trump has taken it to all new levels of slime and I simply can't imagine how anyone is defending him by invoking Bill Clinton from 25 years ago. It's just a really lame excuse for supporting such a wretch. 

"But they flushed that chance when they adamantly defended Clinton through sexual assault, repeated adultery, and then perjury."

Only weak minded pieces of shallow garbage allow something "they" did 25 years ago to lower their own standards. But here we are, with many Republicans defending Trump by saying "but, but, Clinton!". Such a sad worthless excuse.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
3.1.20  Jack_TX  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @3.1.19    one month ago
Please do show me where I defended Bill Clinton.

Did you moan and complain about him being president for 8 years? 

Trump is a serial adulterer who has cheated on all three of his wives.

OK. 

From that alone I would never vote for such a cheating scum bag.

I had more reasons than that.  

While I don't believe the bible is divine in origin, I do believe it contains some wisdom, such as "If you are faithful in little things, you will be faithful in large ones. But if you are dishonest in little things, you won’t be honest with greater responsibilities".

It's an excellent lesson.

Trump is the most dishonest least faithful human being I know, I seriously can not think of a more prolific liar.

Trump is one of many.  You just notice him more because he makes you angry and he has Twitter.

While I was disgusted by Bill Clinton's immoral behavior, Trump has taken it to all new levels of slime and I simply can't imagine how anyone is defending him by invoking Bill Clinton from 25 years ago. It's just a really lame excuse for supporting such a wretch. 

Remembering Clinton isn't a defense of Trump.  It simply points out how ridiculous the hysteria surrounding him is. 

Only weak minded pieces of shallow garbage allow something "they" did 25 years ago to lower their own standards. But here we are, with many Republicans defending Trump by saying "but, but, Clinton!". Such a sad worthless excuse.

More ridiculous hysteria.  I'm not sure what you imagine all your Trump hating actually accomplishes, other than bleeding over into hating people who refuse to wind themselves into a knot over shit on Twitter. 

 
 
 
bugsy
3.1.21  bugsy  replied to  JohnRussell @3.1.2    one month ago
All of those descriptions are provable

Then why is it that every time I asked you to prove just ONE of your accusatory seeds, you go silent? [Deleted]

If you say the things above are provable, then do it.

 
 
 
bugsy
3.1.22  bugsy  replied to  JohnRussell @3.1.8    one month ago
I am pretty sure I have never posted or agreed with a meme showing Trump as Hitler. 

Not really sure about that, but I do know you like to post some stock photos of what you claim are all Trump supporters, all of whom are carrying torches or wearing swastikas. By doing so, you are saying Trump is Hitler and his supporters are his fellow Nazis.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
3.1.23  seeder  JohnRussell  replied to  bugsy @3.1.21    one month ago
Removed for context

[ Deleted ] I , and many others on this site and elsewhere have proven that Trump is a crook, liar, bigot , and moron many times over. 

One example

http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2018/10/president-trump-crook-new-york-times-proves.html

The New York Times has published a massive investigation of President Trump’s finances, revolving around two important revelations. First, Trump was given far more financial support by his father than previously known — at least $413 million in today’s dollars, not the measly $1 million he claims to have received. Second, the mechanisms by which he received these transfers often crossed the line from aggressive or creative maneuvering into illegality. That the Times presents these conclusions so baldly — accusing him of “outright fraud” in the first sentence — in the face of Trump’s famous litigiousness, is a testament to the power and clarity of its findings.

That is to say, Trump was in the money-inheriting business. And that business was essentially, and not just incidentally, illegal. The Times found 295 income streams created by Fred Trump for his son, many of them illegal on their face. The English language has terms for people who make large sources of money from illegal activity: criminals.

massive investigation

The link is to the New York Times investigation. It will take you at least a half hour top read it, that is how extensive it is, and it is proof that Trump is a crook. 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
3.1.24  seeder  JohnRussell  replied to  JohnRussell @3.1.23    one month ago

[Deleted]

 
 
 
bugsy
3.1.25  bugsy  replied to  JohnRussell @3.1.23    one month ago

John, again...these are claims with no real proof, just accusations. This article was published in 2018. When are these prosecutors going to indict him? Hell, if these ACCUSATIONS are so out in the open, why have your friends in Congress not impeached him?

All we hear is "we may possibly think about investigating whether we should possibly investigate possibly in the fall....or maybe next year".

Come on John...get it over with...impeach...

 
 
 
JohnRussell
3.1.26  seeder  JohnRussell  replied to  bugsy @3.1.25    one month ago

The article proves Trump and his father and mother were crooks. 

The statute of limitations will prevent prosecution now. 

 
 
 
bugsy
3.1.27  bugsy  replied to  JohnRussell @3.1.26    one month ago
The article proves Trump and his father and mother were crooks. 

It doesn't prove anything. It lists accusations. If there was proof, Trump would have been and should have been prosecuted before he became President. Of course, back then, he did not yet beat a 2 time Presidential candidate loser and sketchy as it gets old hag named Hillary, but because he did, libs want to accuse him of anything and everything, ALL with no proof.

BTW, you consider this "proof" of Trump's "misdeeds". That was a fail.

Do you have anything else?

 
 
 
Greg Jones
3.1.28  Greg Jones  replied to  Tacos! @3.1.4    one month ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
JohnRussell
3.1.29  seeder  JohnRussell  replied to  bugsy @3.1.27    one month ago
It doesn't prove anything. It lists accusations.

The NYT article is thousands of words and takes well over a half hour to read. And you think it is just a "list of accusations". LOL. 

NT is suffering with all the right wing bullshit we see here hour by hour. It's embarrassing. 

Its pathetic to watch you guys try and defend the indefensible.  Pitiful. 

 
 
 
bugsy
3.1.30  bugsy  replied to  JohnRussell @3.1.29    one month ago
It's embarrassing. 

88aa5a9708fe10faa3529b8420fc07aa.png

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
4  Sean Treacy    one month ago

A Presidential candidate lied and claimed the President "directed" a mass shooting at the debate and you are upset by this. 

Weird world. 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
4.1  seeder  JohnRussell  replied to  Sean Treacy @4    one month ago

I would never say Trump directed the shooting at El Paso, he just set the stage for it. 

 
 
 
MUVA
4.1.1  MUVA  replied to  JohnRussell @4.1    one month ago

What about the Ohio shooting?

 
 
 
Dean Moriarty
5  Dean Moriarty    one month ago

Because I almost never watch commercialized television or listen to commercial radio I never see these ads or suffer through the bombardment of political ads. 

Thanks for sharing that entertaining ad it really hit home with me and put a smile on my face. Without your promotion of this ad I never would have seen it. 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
5.1  seeder  JohnRussell  replied to  Dean Moriarty @5    one month ago
Without your promotion of this ad I never would have seen it. 

Ask me if I care.

 
 
 
Greg Jones
5.1.1  Greg Jones  replied to  JohnRussell @5.1    one month ago

Do you care?

If you didn't care, you wouldn't respond

 
 
 
Krishna
5.1.2  Krishna  replied to  JohnRussell @5.1    one month ago
Ask me if I care.

Well....if you didn't care:

Hopefully I'm not the only Inkspots fan here on NT . . ???

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
5.1.3  Buzz of the Orient  replied to  Krishna @5.1.2    one month ago

Hah.  Last time I heard the Ink Spots was in a car on a way to last November's Special Thanksgiving Dinner for expats - and they were singing that song.  (Although I can't open your YouTube I assume it was "If I Didn't Care")  My friend who was driving plays American old time music to help him with his English pronunciation.

 
 
 
bbl-1
6  bbl-1    one month ago

I watched Ms. Heng's interview with Cuomo on CNN. 

Her reply to everything-----socialism--dead bodies--and etc.

None the less, the most interesting item in the interview was the fact that this 'new gop pac' has significant funding from venture capitalists.  I think that odd.  Seems to me venture capitalist would be putting their monetary investments in jobs, infrastructure or maybe even the ( next new ) trillion dollar source of energy.  ***********So***the next new investment for Americans and Americans is GOPER/WORLD?

Or---is Putin in on this too?

 
 
 
JohnRussell
7  seeder  JohnRussell    one month ago

Just listened to an audio of Chris Cuomo interview with Elizabeth Heng. 

She sounds poorly informed and simplistic. 

She talks about socialism like a sixth grader. 

 
 
 
dennis smith
7.1  dennis smith  replied to  JohnRussell @7    one month ago

"She talks about socialism like a sixth grader." 

If that is true she would fit right in with the dems running for POTUS. 

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
7.2  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  JohnRussell @7    one month ago

Of course you would think that. She is a Republican and a conservative, two of the things you seem to detest most on this Earth short of your rabid hatred of Trump. If she had been a progressive leftist liberal Democrat, she could have said almost anything and gotten a pass from you just like you do the "squad".

 
 
 
bugsy
7.2.1  bugsy  replied to  Ed-NavDoc @7.2    one month ago
She is a Republican and a conservative, two of the things you seem to detest most on this Earth short of your rabid hatred of Trump

Don't forget that she is a conservative minority woman. Most libs love to jump at the chance to insult and demean them.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
7.2.2  seeder  JohnRussell  replied to  Ed-NavDoc @7.2    one month ago
your rabid hatred of Trump

[Deleted]

As if he wouldnt be all these things if liberals didnt "hate" him. 

Ed, if I didnt exist Trump would still be all those things, and you know it.  Why do you accept him as president of the United States? 

 
 
 
Raven Wing
7.2.3  Raven Wing  replied to  JohnRussell @7.2.2    one month ago
Why do you accept him as president of the United States? 

Simple. He is a Republican, and that is all that is needed to favor and defend him. 

 
 
 
Dean Moriarty
7.2.4  Dean Moriarty  replied to  Raven Wing @7.2.3    one month ago

It couldn’t possibly be his representation of their views on immigration, taxes, SCOTUS and federal court appointments could it? 

 
 
 
Raven Wing
7.2.5  Raven Wing  replied to  Dean Moriarty @7.2.4    one month ago

 For most, all the person needs is an R before or after their name to be acceptable for Republicans. However, not all Republicans support Trump, so there is still a moral core in their party.

And yes, the same can be said of the Democrats. 

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
7.2.6  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  JohnRussell @7.2.2    one month ago

Please state where I ever said I defend or accept Trump? I did not vote for him last time nor will I again I. 2020

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
7.2.7  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  Raven Wing @7.2.3    one month ago

Again, as I said to John, please state where I in any way said I defend or accept him as POTUS. 

 
 
 
Jack_TX
7.2.8  Jack_TX  replied to  JohnRussell @7.2.2    one month ago
Why do you accept him as president of the United States? 

For the same reason I accepted Obama.  And Bush.  And Clinton.  And every other president.

Because he has the job.  

 
 
 
Jack_TX
7.2.9  Jack_TX  replied to  bugsy @7.2.1    one month ago
Don't forget that she is a conservative minority woman. Most libs love to jump at the chance to insult and demean them.

Strategically, they have to.  They can't take the chance that might catch on.

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
7.2.10  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  Raven Wing @7.2.3    one month ago

Just for your info. I am neither a Democtrat nor a Republican. I have been a registered Independent for years.

 
 
 
Raven Wing
7.2.11  Raven Wing  replied to  Ed-NavDoc @7.2.7    one month ago
Again, as I said to John, please state where I in any way said I defend or accept him as POTUS. 

Your own comments that you yourself write do that.

 
 
 
Raven Wing
7.2.12  Raven Wing  replied to  Ed-NavDoc @7.2.10    one month ago
Just for your info. I am neither a Democtrat nor a Republican. I have been a registered Independent for years

I am not a Democrat or Republican either, but, that does not stop those here from accusing me of being a Democrat because I don't support Trump. 

 
 
 
KDMichigan
7.2.13  KDMichigan  replied to  JohnRussell @7.2.2    one month ago
Why do you accept him as president of the United States? 

Oh I'm sorry John, all this time I thought you seen the election results. Here is the full version on "CNN" so you can't cry fake news.....Spoiler alert, Trump wins.

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
7.2.14  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  Raven Wing @7.2.11    one month ago

Again, what comments? And also, I do not recall accusing you of anything have I? If so, please tell me.

 
 
 
Raven Wing
7.2.15  Raven Wing  replied to  Ed-NavDoc @7.2.14    one month ago

I'm not falling for the game of 'show me', when you, and most all the rest of the members here on NT know how much you support Trump. If you think I'm going to go through all your comments where you show support for Trump you are mistaken. 

And also, I do not recall accusing you of anything have I? 

Where did I say YOU did? What I said was;

that does not stop those here from accusing me of being a Democrat because I don't support Trump. 

Please find for me where in that statement did I mention you by name. You can't because I didn't.

Now stop with your games. I am not interested in such childish gamesmanship.

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
7.2.16  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  Raven Wing @7.2.11    one month ago

Bottom line is if you cannot prove, the don't accuse. You obviously cannot. I'm done. You have a good evening.

 
 
 
Raven Wing
7.2.17  Raven Wing  replied to  Ed-NavDoc @7.2.16    one month ago
Bottom line is if you cannot prove, the don't accuse.

I don't need to prove anything, your own comments will do that very well. 

Have a good evening as well. 

 
 
 
dennis smith
7.2.18  dennis smith  replied to  JohnRussell @7.2.2    one month ago

Trump was elected as POTUS, why don't you accept him as POTUR?

 
 
 
Jack_TX
7.3  Jack_TX  replied to  JohnRussell @7    one month ago
She sounds poorly informed and simplistic.  She talks about socialism like a sixth grader.

Oh, the irony.

 
 
 
It Is ME
9  It Is ME    one month ago

Only "SHE"....can prevent a "Fire" ! 

"Careless moments by It Is Me" !

 
 
Loading...
Loading...

Who is online


Tacos!
FLYNAVY1


27 visitors