US Politics Thread |OT| SAD TRUMP

[Stro]

Ya dawg I'm really going to call for the bombing of my own country 

[Madrun Badrun]

 October 12, 2017
The Gun Show

For nearly 200 years of our nation's history, the Second Amendment was an all-but-forgotten rule about the importance of militias. But in the 1960s and 70s, a movement emerged — led by Black Panthers and a recently-repositioned NRA — that insisted owning a firearm was the right of each and every American. So began a constitutional debate that only the Supreme Court could solve. That didn't happen until 2008, when a Washington, D.C. security guard named Dick Heller made a compelling case.

https://www.npr.org/podcasts/481105292/more-perfect

[agrajag]

Yeah, look at all these dumb fucks calling for bombing Syria in this thread....

[shosta]

Well, the latest Nicholas Kristof piece said that you'd make a bunch of false equivalences, tell us we're all sheep, and then drop a tweet by a globalist establishment Democrat, all because you don't want to confront that you're an easily baitable mouthpiece for thinly veiled Russian propaganda that literally came from their military, which you somehow think makes you "open-minded" instead of just a predictable moron. Advice was to just laugh you off while you squeal about false flags and Illuminati.

[Mupepe]

October 12, 2017
The Gun Show

For nearly 200 years of our nation's history, the Second Amendment was an all-but-forgotten rule about the importance of militias. But in the 1960s and 70s, a movement emerged — led by Black Panthers and a recently-repositioned NRA — that insisted owning a firearm was the right of each and every American. So began a constitutional debate that only the Supreme Court could solve. That didn't happen until 2008, when a Washington, D.C. security guard named Dick Heller made a compelling case.

https://www.npr.org/podcasts/481105292/more-perfect

Thanks for the link. I’ll take a listen. I find the blip above strange though because as early as 1886 the Supreme Court ruled that the 2nd amendment was applicable to individuals, not necessarily militias. And the argument about that application began long before that.

[Optimus]

Well, the latest Nicholas Kristof piece said that you'd make a bunch of false equivalences, tell us we're all sheep, and then drop a tweet by a globalist establishment Democrat, all because you don't want to confront that you're an easily baitable mouthpiece for thinly veiled Russian propaganda that literally came from their military, which you somehow think makes you "open-minded" instead of just a predictable moron. Advice was to just laugh you off while you squeal about false flags and Illuminati.

Yes, but did he also tell you to react like a whiny little bitch when you hear someone being suspicious of the US media narrative he contributes to and that has supported other awesome wars too like the one in Iraq, or are you doing that all on your own?

[shosta]

Do you or do you not think the Syrian government is reponsible for most of the chemical weapons attacks in Syria?

[Mandark]

Thanks for the link. I’ll take a listen. I find the blip above strange though because as early as 1886 the Supreme Court ruled that the 2nd amendment was applicable to individuals, not necessarily militias. And the argument about that application began long before that.

I don't think the 1886 case really did that, but I could be wrong. I only read about it years ago and I'm super fuzzy on the details at that point.

The thing is, however it would apply to individual gun ownership, the 2nd Amendment was absolutely conceived in the context of maintaining militias, and in the debate between the value of those militias vs. having a professional standing army. That question wound up getting resolved in favor of a standing army a while ago, so all the debate about the intention of the founders or early interpretations winds up being weirdly disconnected.

Cause there's a certain amount of "citizens should be armed to protect themselves from the government" rhetoric, but very, very few people are seriously trying to abolish the military and reinstate the idea of a general militia as the main line of national defense.

[Optimus]

Do you or do you not think the Syrian government is reponsible for most of the chemical weapons attacks in Syria?

I don't know. An objective third party that can confirm something doesn't exist and there are reports that the Muslim extremists have chlorine gas too. I trust no one and I refuse to take US propaganda more seriously than Russian one especially given US government's history of planting evidence to start wars. The one thing that makes me even more suspicious than usual is the fact that Assad was already about to take the city so using chemical weapons would be counter-productive and strategically nonsensical.

[Mupepe]

Thanks for the link. I’ll take a listen. I find the blip above strange though because as early as 1886 the Supreme Court ruled that the 2nd amendment was applicable to individuals, not necessarily militias. And the argument about that application began long before that.

I don't think the 1886 case really did that, but I could be wrong. I only read about it years ago and I'm super fuzzy on the details at that point.

The thing is, however it would apply to individual gun ownership, the 2nd Amendment was absolutely conceived in the context of maintaining militias, and in the debate between the value of those militias vs. having a professional standing army. That question wound up getting resolved in favor of a standing army a while ago, so all the debate about the intention of the founders or early interpretations winds up being weirdly disconnected.

Cause there's a certain amount of "citizens should be armed to protect themselves from the government" rhetoric, but very, very few people are seriously trying to abolish the military and reinstate the idea of a general militia as the main line of national defense.

From what I recall from the case it was that it did give individuals the right to bear arms, but also gave states the ability to limit those rights. I definitely agree with the disconnect of the original intent and I don’t think it matters as much as people say. I view it similarly to the founders original intent on things like presidential elections. Either way the meaning evolved or the context of the world (like your mention of a standing army) evolved. With all that said and acknowledging that I’m more on the right than most here regarding the 2nd amendment I do think if the 2nd amendment was truly for defense against the government they would have been more explicit in the wording when crafting the bill of rights. Other explicit rights are pretty well defined and anti federalists seemed to be keen on specifics with those rights.

And to be clear I’m not sure exactly where I stand on the subject as I am definitely open to reform and restrictions and while I don’t believe self defense (from the government or anyone else) was the intent of the 2nd amendment I do believe in it as a right of sorts.

Most gun owners freak me out by the way. Either from their weird fantasies of rebellion or heroic bullshit or their lack of training and experience. Just a note.

[shosta]

It's not nonsensical. When you corner your enemies in a siege, they dig in as much as possible. Any attempts to take the rest of the city are suicidal. Look at how long it took to take Mosul from ISIS. Now imagine you can gas them out like rats.

The OPCW isn't trustworthy? Or the UN? Which third party do you actually trust?

[Stro]

I think you have to be a little suspicious considering Bolton is involved, and he's wanted to invade Syria since 9/11. Literally days after he comes on board we're about to invade Syria. Since before Trump even got into office he's been itching to blow some shit up. The US really hasn't ever operated altruistically in the Middle East over the past 60 years or so. I don't think it's weird to side eye the situation a bit.

We're still in Afghanistan and Iraq, and nothing we've done has improved dick in those countries. Can't we let someone else handle this shit this time?

[Mandark]

I think you can oppose American military adventurism while still being skeptical of PR from other nations and giving some weight to Occam's Razor.

Lord knows I spent a lot of time in 2002/3 saying "of course Saddam is awful, but that doesn't mean..."

[Optimus]

It's not nonsensical. When you corner your enemies in a siege, they dig in as much as possible. Any attempts to take the rest of the city are suicidal. Look at how long it took to take Mosul from ISIS. Now imagine you can gas them out like rats.

The OPCW isn't trustworthy? Or the UN? Which third party do you actually trust?

I have to admit that I don't know much about how the UN operates but from what I remember from Iraq they were quite objective and professional. US media still found a way to spin their findings though to push propaganda so for Putin it's a lose-lose situation to invite them in. Aside from the fact that Russia doesn't trust them, even if they were invited all they can do is at worst confirm it was chlorine gas which the Western propaganda machine can easily spin as proof of Assad's guilt. And even if they found nothing I'm sure they could discover plenty of other stuff that could give the US an excuse since yeah, Assad is an asshole.

A very recent example of media spin is the attempted murder on the Russian spy (which btw I'm preeeetty certain Putin did in case you're wondering). In spite of the fact that the inspectors could only confirm what the substance was Western mass media throughout the world presented it as if there was proof it was of Russian origin. It's as if these fuckers are being instructed to push a specific narrative or something. One could call that kind of deceptive behavior "propaganda".

[thehunter116]

[Madrun Badrun]

I prefer 'Make attornies get attornies'

[agrajag]

https://abovethelaw.com/2018/04/clown-lawyer-michael-cohen-gonna-learn-today/?rf=1

[shosta]

all they can do is at worst confirm it was chlorine gas which the Western propaganda machine can easily spin as proof of Assad's guilt

That would be a start, considering Russia is denying there was even a gas attack in douma at all. Anyway if the Syrian government didn't gas them, who did? What other parties could credibly have chlorine or sarin gas?

[Boredfrom]

I think you can oppose American military adventurism while still being skeptical of PR from other nations and giving some weight to Occam's Razor.

Lord knows I spent a lot of time in 2002/3 saying "of course Saddam is awful, but that doesn't mean..."

That would require that Optimus start to distrust most sub Reddits and web sites he likes, and there is so much critical thinking in his life to add more.

[kingv]

You know, I really gotta respect the husband in that Greitens Missouri thing.

This dude got ultimate revenge. He’s probably going to end up forcing the guy to resign, embarrasses the dudes whole wife and family and drags him through the mud AND gets to embarrass the shit out of his ex-wife.

[etiolate]

all they can do is at worst confirm it was chlorine gas which the Western propaganda machine can easily spin as proof of Assad's guilt

That would be a start, considering Russia is denying there was even a gas attack in douma at all. Anyway if the Syrian government didn't gas them, who did? What other parties could credibly have chlorine or sarin gas?

the rebels/terrorists

Have money and you can get weapons. Any situation like this is a sellers market for arms dealers.

[Nola]

all they can do is at worst confirm it was chlorine gas which the Western propaganda machine can easily spin as proof of Assad's guilt

That would be a start, considering Russia is denying there was even a gas attack in douma at all. Anyway if the Syrian government didn't gas them, who did? What other parties could credibly have chlorine or sarin gas?

the rebels/terrorists

Have money and you can get weapons. Any situation like this is a sellers market for arms dealers.

And if that were the case Russia would be treating this like a top priority at the UN. Like they do when it's any investigation/resolution that will harm/shame a perceived geopolitical foe.

But they are vehemently fighting against any formal investigation.....to protect the rebels threatening the regime they back and risk an escalation with a nuclear power that views their ally as the culprit? Yeah, no.

[benjipwns]

Anyway, I'll leave you with this:

https://twitter.com/ChrisMurphyCT/status/984076656221589504

Not surprised a Democrat denies the existence of Israel, but Jordan, Iraq and Saudi Arabia too? Wow.

[benjipwns]

My thoughts are you're historically ignorant. Since the USSR years Russia didn't trust UN and other international organizations. Whether the mistrust is justified or not I don't know but the definitely don't trust them.

Dude, the Russians/Soviets basically invented (with the French) manipulating UN votes as proxies for establishing normal international policy, let alone actual action regarding it. Aside from a brief period during the Eisenhower administration, it comparatively took decades for the U.S. to realize they were the only ones "playing by the rules" even including their typically free vote from Taiwan and overtrust in the UK. The Soviets were never vetoing out of mistrust, they were vetoing out of stopping losing votes. (As the US/China/Russia now does.)

Even just on the security council, the Soviets issued nearly every internationally focused veto from the permanent five until the 1970s. The U.S. and should-be proxy vote Taiwan combined issued a total of one prior to 1970. Taiwan vetoed Mongolia joining, that the Soviets immediately responded to by announcing a permanent veto on any further African states until Mongolia was allowed and Taiwan reversed. The UK and France mostly vetoed in cases regarding the unwinding of their colonial positions.

The ascension of China to the fifth seat, along with the overall global governance changes with colonialism ending, was the start of a period that mandated a change in the calculus of the Security Council's positions, the Soviets (who until 1970 issued 80 vetoes, more than any country has ever issued until the next U.S. veto ties the U.S. all-time with the Soviets 1946-69 record) were no longer permanently the outlier nation on the Council, the U.S. entered that period as it more often and thus dropped 65 vetoes until 1991. (The UK, and occasionally France, backed up this switch with a combined 40 vetoes in this period versus 10 from the Soviets.)

The Soviets, and then RED CHINA, have always been the dominant power players in the UN because they were better at managing the votes in the SC and General Assembly. (Something I've always found amusing considering the respective at home governments of the various parties.) Many of the various diversity and rotation rules, along with things like picking the Secretary General were almost always the Soviets not giving a shit other than to poke the Western allies in the eye and win support from the Southern Hemisphere and using their mandated position as leveraging this.

[benjipwns]

Ya dawg I'm really going to call for the bombing of my own country 

typical lack of principles from the "Progressives" on The Bore smh

[curly]

My thoughts are you're historically ignorant. Since the USSR years Russia didn't trust UN and other international organizations. Whether the mistrust is justified or not I don't know but the definitely don't trust them.

Dude, the Russians/Soviets basically invented (with the French) manipulating UN votes as proxies for establishing normal international policy, let alone actual action regarding it. Aside from a brief period during the Eisenhower administration, it comparatively took decades for the U.S. to realize they were the only ones "playing by the rules" even including their typically free vote from Taiwan and overtrust in the UK. The Soviets were never vetoing out of mistrust, they were vetoing out of stopping losing votes. (As the US/China/Russia now does.)

Even just on the security council, the Soviets issued nearly every internationally focused veto from the permanent five until the 1970s. The U.S. and should-be proxy vote Taiwan combined issued a total of one prior to 1970. Taiwan vetoed Mongolia joining, that the Soviets immediately responded to by announcing a permanent veto on any further African states until Mongolia was allowed and Taiwan reversed. The UK and France mostly vetoed in cases regarding the unwinding of their colonial positions.

The ascension of China to the fifth seat, along with the overall global governance changes with colonialism ending, was the start of a period that mandated a change in the calculus of the Security Council's positions, the Soviets (who until 1970 issued 80 vetoes, more than any country has ever issued until the next U.S. veto ties the U.S. all-time with the Soviets 1946-69 record) were no longer permanently the outlier nation on the Council, the U.S. entered that period as it more often and thus dropped 65 vetoes until 1991. (The UK, and occasionally France, backed up this switch with a combined 40 vetoes in this period versus 10 from the Soviets.)

The Soviets, and then RED CHINA, have always been the dominant power players in the UN because they were better at managing the votes in the SC and General Assembly. (Something I've always found amusing considering the respective at home governments of the various parties.) Many of the various diversity and rotation rules, along with things like picking the Secretary General were almost always the Soviets not giving a shit other than to poke the Western allies in the eye and win support from the Southern Hemisphere and using their mandated position as leveraging this.

My thoughts are you're historically ignorant.

[benjipwns]

[Mandark]

https://twitter.com/kept_simple/status/984191971190243328

[benjipwns]

Karl 9 hours ago
This is just a tip of the iceberg. While dancing to the tune of Zionist fiddlers for eight years, Obama expanded the war on terror which includes the executive privilege of unilaterally designating anyone anywhere an "enemy combatant" as a precursor to their assassination - even teenage children. He kept the officially sanctioned myth of 9/11 going by staging the alleged death of Osama bin Laden. He endeavored to pass the TPP in lockstep with the neoliberal aspirations of the transnational capital class; Obama's global war on terror itself is merely the latest stage of neoliberal economic hegemony whereby religious and ideological differences of opposing (Muslim) nations states are now being directly dealt with via drone assassinations, regime change, and military pacification. The intended balkanization of Muslim countries continues to pick up steam while the political and financial fortunes of Putin, Obama, Trump, the Clintons, etc. continues to grow. And while the world is becoming evermore transfixed by Trump's pornographic hijinks, the deep state has been providing him with the finest horsehair brushes (befitting a stallion of his stature) by which he could paint himself into their corner.

TruthsOut 11 hours ago
I disagree, Obama followed the same 7 wars plan that was written pre 911 and started by Bush. He also put in Neocons Nuland and Powers etc to facilitate a coup in Ukraine. He had Brzezinski as an advisor. Obama was a Sorbet to take the taste off of 8 years of Bush but he carried out all the same things including NDAA.

The only thing I can give Obama credit for is the Iran deal. Perhaps a rebellion of conscience before leaving. Trump will tear that up now. Neocons will get it all, the full 7 wars carried out and maybe even a war with Russia. America will fight and pay for it

[Optimus]

My thoughts are you're historically ignorant. Since the USSR years Russia didn't trust UN and other international organizations. Whether the mistrust is justified or not I don't know but the definitely don't trust them.

Dude, the Russians/Soviets basically invented (with the French) manipulating UN votes as proxies for establishing normal international policy, let alone actual action regarding it. Aside from a brief period during the Eisenhower administration, it comparatively took decades for the U.S. to realize they were the only ones "playing by the rules" even including their typically free vote from Taiwan and overtrust in the UK. The Soviets were never vetoing out of mistrust, they were vetoing out of stopping losing votes. (As the US/China/Russia now does.)

Even just on the security council, the Soviets issued nearly every internationally focused veto from the permanent five until the 1970s. The U.S. and should-be proxy vote Taiwan combined issued a total of one prior to 1970. Taiwan vetoed Mongolia joining, that the Soviets immediately responded to by announcing a permanent veto on any further African states until Mongolia was allowed and Taiwan reversed. The UK and France mostly vetoed in cases regarding the unwinding of their colonial positions.

The ascension of China to the fifth seat, along with the overall global governance changes with colonialism ending, was the start of a period that mandated a change in the calculus of the Security Council's positions, the Soviets (who until 1970 issued 80 vetoes, more than any country has ever issued until the next U.S. veto ties the U.S. all-time with the Soviets 1946-69 record) were no longer permanently the outlier nation on the Council, the U.S. entered that period as it more often and thus dropped 65 vetoes until 1991. (The UK, and occasionally France, backed up this switch with a combined 40 vetoes in this period versus 10 from the Soviets.)

The Soviets, and then RED CHINA, have always been the dominant power players in the UN because they were better at managing the votes in the SC and General Assembly. (Something I've always found amusing considering the respective at home governments of the various parties.) Many of the various diversity and rotation rules, along with things like picking the Secretary General were almost always the Soviets not giving a shit other than to poke the Western allies in the eye and win support from the Southern Hemisphere and using their mandated position as leveraging this.

Well, that's an awfully US centric view that makes us even look like victims which is ridiculous. Before the 70's US was manipulating the UN into doing shit like Suez and the Congo Operation so implying that things were even and then got uneven against us is extremely biased. More like the US was using UN to promote their interests and the Soviets were holding them back any way they could through vetoes.

[agrajag]

snip

So you're saying Optimus is the historically ignorant one?

[Great Rumbler]

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/984374422587965440

 

[Skullfuckers Anonymous]

the_donald censored posts

It forever amuses me that The_Donald will simultaneously cry victim about how they are being oppressed on a private company's website that has no obligation to give them a platform, while they will censor/ban the fuck out of you the moment you attempt to speak ill of the chosen one or do any of the trolling/shitposting they want free reign to do on the rest of the site.

Funny enough, I tried to participate in a genuine conversation on The_Donald a few weeks back, but was banned after two posts for 'trolling' and 'not being a Trump supporter'.

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/984374422587965440

 

He just wants to be loved. 

[Brehvolution]

How desperate is the RNC to setup(terribly) https://www.lyincomey.com/ before the book is released? They don't even know what's in it.

[Joe Molotov]

Thanks, Americabama.

[Mandark]

It's not nonsensical. When you corner your enemies in a siege, they dig in as much as possible. Any attempts to take the rest of the city are suicidal. Look at how long it took to take Mosul from ISIS. Now imagine you can gas them out like rats.

Also worth pointing out that the insurgents basically abandoned Douma in the days immediately after the gas attack, which seems like an odd choice if they'd staged it themselves in order to draw in the US.

[shosta]

https://twitter.com/washingtonpost/status/984093473656791040
"Democracy dies in Darkness."

[Skullfuckers Anonymous]

https://twitter.com/washingtonpost/status/984093473656791040
"Democracy dies in Darkness."

Russia Today?

[zomgee]

https://twitter.com/washingtonpost/status/984093473656791040
"Democracy dies in Darkness."

nick news

[Skullfuckers Anonymous]

https://twitter.com/yashar/status/984519216668794881

Whoops.

[Great Rumbler]

Dino's gonna be found floating face-down in the Potomac in a few weeks.

[nachobro]

I doubt it Rumbler. I don't see what motive Hillary would have to kill him (like she did with Seth Rich) ((allegedly)) (((not allegedly)))

[Nintex]

 

[warcock]

Dronabinol is used clinically pretty much as an appetite stimulant. Get more junk in dat trunk baes.

[Skullfuckers Anonymous]

“He brought up what he called the ‘golden showers thing’ … adding that it bothered him if there was ‘even a one percent chance’ his wife, Melania, thought it was true,” Comey writes in “A Higher Loyalty: Truth, Lies, and Leadership,” a copy of which was obtained by The Post.

“He just rolled on, unprompted, explaining why it couldn’t possibly be true, ending by saying he was thinking of asking me to investigate the allegation to prove it was a lie. I said it was up to him.”

Comey says he warned Trump an investigation might “create a narrative that we were investigating him personally,” the former top G-man writes.

The president replied that he “might be right” — but kept asking him to consider the idea, and said he would as well, according to Comey.

https://nypost.com/2018/04/12/comey-trump-asked-me-to-investigate-pee-tape-to-reassure-melania/

 

[etiolate]

[benjipwns]

Before the 70's US was manipulating the UN into doing shit like Suez

what

[shosta]

Dronabinol is used clinically pretty much as an appetite stimulant. Get more junk in dat trunk baes.

research suggests it's as effective as smoked marijuana for pain relief

[Boredfrom]

“He brought up what he called the ‘golden showers thing’ … adding that it bothered him if there was ‘even a one percent chance’ his wife, Melania, thought it was true,” Comey writes in “A Higher Loyalty: Truth, Lies, and Leadership,” a copy of which was obtained by The Post.

“He just rolled on, unprompted, explaining why it couldn’t possibly be true, ending by saying he was thinking of asking me to investigate the allegation to prove it was a lie. I said it was up to him.”

Comey says he warned Trump an investigation might “create a narrative that we were investigating him personally,” the former top G-man writes.

The president replied that he “might be right” — but kept asking him to consider the idea, and said he would as well, according to Comey.

https://nypost.com/2018/04/12/comey-trump-asked-me-to-investigate-pee-tape-to-reassure-melania/

 

So the Pee Pee tape is real.

[benjipwns]

Expect President Trump to fire Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein in the next few days. Maybe he won’t do it. Maybe he’ll change his mind.

[benjipwns]

Expect President Trump to sacrifice millions to the Blood God Khorne in the next few days. Maybe he won't do it. Maybe he'll change his mind.

[Nola]

Expect President Trump to fire Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein in the next few days. Maybe he won’t do it. Maybe he’ll change his mind.

I was reading that earlier, click-bait opening aside, his central thesis is a legitimate one.....Though it's one that has been made like every week for a year. Though you as your Benji self is probably not really concerned with 

But it does seem like he is inching very near his Saturday Night Massacre. And the Republicans are going to bend in cowardice like they have at every step of the way. Having done enough to get 40% of the country to go along with it. Between Cohen, the reported Bannon stuff and the CBS report that he is ordering people to go on TV to specifically make the case for firing Rosenstein/Mueller, this feels a step further than any of the ground-setting that has come before.

[agrajag]

(Image removed from quote.)

 

the best strategist

[Nintex]

Expect President Trump to fire Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein in the next few days. Maybe he won’t do it. Maybe he’ll change his mind.

I was reading that earlier, click-bait opening aside, his central thesis is a legitimate one.....Though it's one that has been made like every week for a year. Though you as your Benji self is probably not really concerned with 

But it does seem like he is inching very near his Saturday Night Massacre. And the Republicans are going to bend in cowardice like they have at every step of the way. Having done enough to get 40% of the country to go along with it. Between Cohen, the reported Bannon stuff and the CBS report that he is ordering people to go on TV to specifically make the case for firing Rosenstein/Mueller, this feels a step further than any of the ground-setting that has come before.

My fellow Americans today is a great day because America is great again. But some places are not so great, believe me. Babies are choking in their own blood, mothers torn away from their families. Children crawling in the streets gasping for air. We've all seen images of the horrors of Syria. First there was ISIS. Which is by the way almost defeated. But the Animal Assad has decided that now that ISIS is gone he can kill without consequences. He's protected by Iran and Russia who think they can get away with murdering innocents. The United States does not stand for such horror and hatred. We are a peaceful nation only looking to share the flames of liberty and freedom with the world. Such are our values and the values of our allies. Today I have decided. I've made the decision to launch a military strike against Syria. Our allies France, JAPAN and the United Kingdom stand with the United States as we fight to protect the freedom of Syrian children and their mothers. I thank our great secretary of defense, James Mattis and our new National Security Advisor who's doing a terrific job, John Bolton. I also thank our men and women in uniform, French President Macaroni.. Macron and Theresay May. The British president. Also Rosenstein, Jeff Sessions and Mueller are fired from their posts effective immediately. Thank you, god bless you and god bless the United States of America and its wonderful allies as we come together as one in unity to protect the world. I ask all of you to put these wonderful people into your prayers tonight. 

[kingv]

So, Cohen is now asking for an emergency stay in the stormy Daniels case and is planning to plead the fif if it doesn’t go through.

He’s probably fucked.

[Nintex]

So, Cohen is now asking for an emergency stay in the stormy Daniels case and is planning to plead the fif if it doesn’t go through.

He’s probably fucked.

All that for paying off a pornstar? 

[chronovore]

I prefer 'Make attornies get attornies'

Attorneys.

[Phoenix Dark]

Everything is fake news

[Nintex]

https://twitter.com/jdawsey1/status/984575109926129667
This dumbfuck probably taped everything 

[Madrun Badrun]

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/382813-parkland-teacher-reportedly-left-a-loaded-gun-in-a-public

I prefer 'Make attornies get attornies'

Attorneys.

Canadian spelling.