But her emails!

[kallend 1,635]

Still awaiting the promised Trumpcare plan.

Still waiting for Mexico to pay for the wall.

And now this:

https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/477641-doj-inquiry-tied-to-clinton-and-touted-by-trump-winds-down-with-no

[DJL 232]

21 minutes ago, kallend said:

Still awaiting the promised Trumpcare plan.

Still waiting for Mexico to pay for the wall.

And now this:

https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/477641-doj-inquiry-tied-to-clinton-and-touted-by-trump-winds-down-with-no

Weird, it's as if he was just saying shit on the campaign trail without any regard for reality.

[normiss 622]

They've only been investigating Clinton for 10 years or so.

Just you wait, that NEXT investigation will get her!

 

[SkyDekker 1,135]

Clinton foundation investigated and all is good.

Trump foundation investigated and shut down. Trump and kids barred from running charities for a while.

To sum it up: Trump supporters won't care. It isn't about actual facts, it is about who talks the loudest.

[gowlerk 1,918]

6 minutes ago, SkyDekker said:

It isn't about actual facts, it is about who talks the loudest.

And carries the biggest stick.

[normiss 622]

32 minutes ago, gowlerk said:

And carries the biggest stick.

Stormy said Trump had a little mushroom stick though.

[yobnoc 142]

8 hours ago, SkyDekker said:

Clinton foundation investigated and all is good.

Trump foundation investigated and shut down. Trump and kids barred from running charities for a while.

To sum it up: Trump supporters won't care. It isn't about actual facts, it is about who talks the loudest.

I brought this exact point up to my mother after she reposted an article about CNN settling with that little shit head who sued them for $800M.  I pointed out her bias in that I didn't remember her saying anything when the Trump Crime Family settled and shut down their "charity," and as a condition for settling had to admit wrongdoing and aren't allowed to operate any charities anymore.  She then pivoted to the Clinton Foundation (because that's what 45's lackeys do: whataboutism).  I was happy to ask for any evidence of criminal wrongdoing by the Clinton Foundation.  What I got back was: Well that's only because all the witnesses are dead by 'suicide.'

Great!  So they're guilty by a verdict issued from amateur sleuths in tinfoil hats!  Brilliant! (I actually wrote that; it's not just reflecting).  Got blocked by three people on my mom's friend's list over that one.

There really is no attachment to reality for most of these people anymore. 

[kallend 1,635]

11 hours ago, DJL said:

Weird, it's as if he was just saying shit on the campaign trail without any regard for reality.

Oh the humanity!

[brenthutch 388]

On 1/10/2020 at 8:34 PM, yobnoc said:

I brought this exact point up to my mother after she reposted an article about CNN settling with that little shit head who sued them for $800M.  I pointed out her bias 

You call an underaged victim of a character assassination by a giant corporation a “Little shit head” and you pointed out HER bias? That IS rich.

[yoink 321]

On 1/10/2020 at 8:55 AM, normiss said:

They've only been investigating Clinton for 10 years or so.

Just you wait, that NEXT investigation will get her!

 

How many are still ongoing?

there have to be a couple at any point in time otherwise the universe ends, I’m sure.

[yobnoc 142]

19 hours ago, brenthutch said:

You call an underaged victim of a character assassination by a giant corporation a “Little shit head” and you pointed out HER bias? That IS rich.

Yeah, I can.  My opinion of his character is that he seems like a little shit head.  That's not the same as saying he's somehow a criminal.

[brenthutch 388]

40 minutes ago, yobnoc said:

Yeah, I can.  My opinion of his character is that he seems like a little shit head.  That's not the same as saying he's somehow a criminal.

No it's not, but it reveals YOUR bias nonetheless.  Your bias is no doubt shaped by the character assignation you saw on MSM, demonstrably damaging his reputation, hence the lawsuit.

[yobnoc 142]

3 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

No it's not, but it reveals YOUR bias nonetheless.  Your bias is no doubt shaped by the character assignation you saw on MSM, demonstrably damaging his reputation, hence the lawsuit.

Um...no?  I ascribed that all by myself.  You show me a 16 year old bearing a MAGA hat, and I'll show you a shit head.

Also, I hardly saw any coverage on this.  I don't have cable, though I followed loosely what was going on based on other articles from both political perspectives mostly seen on RCP (a conservative leaning news aggregate). 

 

[brenthutch 388]

51 minutes ago, yobnoc said:

Um...no?  I ascribed that all by myself.  You show me a 16 year old bearing a MAGA hat, and I'll show you a shit head.

 

Ok I take it back, you can form your prejudicial and biased opinions about a person just by the way they look.  How enlightened.

[normiss 622]

4 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

Ok I take it back, you can form your prejudicial and biased opinions about a person just by the way they look.  How enlightened.

The people who rudely force it in your face make it rather easy and accurate though.

[SkyDekker 1,135]

9 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

Ok I take it back, you can form your prejudicial and biased opinions about a person just by the way they look.  How enlightened.

Not by how they look, but what they choose to wear. I am sure you do the exact same thing.

[yobnoc 142]

1 hour ago, brenthutch said:

Ok I take it back, you can form your prejudicial and biased opinions about a person just by the way they look.  How enlightened.

Yes, Brent.  As a functional adult and professional, I make judgements based on obvious personality traits (i.e. advertised by the subject of my judgement).  I would not hire someone who showed up to an interview wearing a death metal T-shirt and goth makeup based on the fact that they are advertising, through their choices of apparel and makeup, that they are unserious and unprofessional.  In the same way, when I see someone wearing a MAGA hat, I categorize them accordingly. 

[brenthutch 388]

46 minutes ago, yobnoc said:

Yes, Brent.  As a functional adult and professional, I make judgements based on obvious personality traits (i.e. advertised by the subject of my judgement).  I would not hire someone who showed up to an interview wearing a death metal T-shirt and goth makeup based on the fact that they are advertising, through their choices of apparel and makeup, that they are unserious and unprofessional.  In the same way, when I see someone wearing a MAGA hat, I categorize them accordingly. 

Then you are missing out.  I interviewed a young man who was intelligent and well spoken, he just had a set of dreadlocks that would put Sideshow Bob to shame.  I referred him on as a hire but my boss turned him down, I protested and he was eventually hired and became one of my best people, worked for me for the rest of the time he was an undergrad, then moved onto law school. The phrase “don’t judge a book by its cover” comes to mind.  

[yobnoc 142]

40 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

Then you are missing out.  I interviewed a young man who was intelligent and well spoken, he just had a set of dreadlocks that would put Sideshow Bob to shame.  I referred him on as a hire but my boss turned him down, I protested and he was eventually hired and became one of my best people, worked for me for the rest of the time he was an undergrad, then moved onto law school. The phrase “don’t judge a book by its cover” comes to mind.  

You're assuming I have a problem with dread locks?  Quite the opposite.  It shows me that the person has determination. 

What we're really after here though is that I'm freely admitting my bias, while the Cult45 pretends like they have none.

It's also independent of pointing out manufactured outrage by others.  If you're up in arms about CNN settling a lawsuit (which does not imply guilt or admission of guilt, btw) but you choose to ignore a lawsuit that Trump settled in which one of the conditions of settlement was admission of guilt and being barred from ever running a charity again - well, you are clearly further along the spectrum of biases than I am when analyzing objective facts.

[turtlespeed 212]

3 hours ago, SkyDekker said:

Not by how they look, but what they choose to wear. I am sure you do the exact same thing.

Seems as though some here don't like Sandman's life style, doesn't it?

[brenthutch 388]

1 hour ago, yobnoc said:

You're assuming I have a problem with dread locks?  

No I am assuming nothing.  You have clearly stated you judge people on their appearance.

[JoeWeber 2,318]

1 hour ago, brenthutch said:

Then you are missing out.  I interviewed a young man who was intelligent and well spoken, he just had a set of dreadlocks that would put Sideshow Bob to shame.  I referred him on as a hire but my boss turned him down, I protested and he was eventually hired and became one of my best people, worked for me for the rest of the time he was an undergrad, then moved onto law school. The phrase “don’t judge a book by its cover” comes to mind.  

You are so awesome. Also, you aren't the only person who has hired weird looking packers.

[jakee 1,257]

4 hours ago, turtlespeed said:

Seems as though some here don't like Sandman's life style, doesn't it?

Right, because they don't like hardcore Trump supporting activists. Why don't you like gay people?

[brenthutch 388]

10 hours ago, JoeWeber said:

You are so awesome. Also, you aren't the only person who has hired weird looking packers.

I hired him as a paid intern when I worked in banking.  A suit and tie with dreads.

[turtlespeed 212]

So, what you are implying is that you don't like those people, as people, because of your perception of them? 

That's called bigotry, isn't it, or is it simply prejudice?