Officer, arrest this man on charges of first degree murder

True, it will still be relevant on November 4th, and however long it takes them to manipulate the results!

You’re referring to the GOP, right?

https://theweek.com/speedreads/939191/trump-campaign-reportedly-discussing-contingency-plans-bypass-election-results

“Reportedly” probably the same “anonymous sources” that “claim” trump called the military losers. Also, John Bolton, who hates trump, said that he never said that, but you wouldn’t know, you drank the koolaid!

Anonymous sources are the cornerstone of investigative journalism. Ask Bob Woodward and Richard Nixon.

Donald Trump “hears things” all the time but you righties lap it up like day-old milk. So journalists who work their entire lives to expose corruption are liars but the guy whose entire life has been dedicated to swindling and lying is telling the truth?

Let me guess...QAnon?

It’s a lie when there’s no evidence, no sorry, evidence AGAINST IT. Also, what’s QAnon??

If an investigative journalist offers evidence and you choose not to believe because it runs contrary to what you *believe*, you’re not disseminating information; you’re choosing to be selectively ignorant.

I wonder if you push back this hard when Trump tweets that “hears something” or “somebody tells Trump something.” My guess is not a bat’s chance in hell.

Day old milk. Slurp slurp slurp.

I don’t push back, but I do wait for more info on the story. And so far there’s been zero evidence added to this “suckers and losers” story that helps your case! The only evidence is against it! So remind me, what evidence from this story am I ignoring?

The only info you seem to go by it Trump’s word. If reputable journalists say they have sources within the administration and you say “no, they don’t” then you’re doing exactly what I said you’re doing, which is the equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears, closing your eyes and screaming over and over “I don’t believe you I don’t believe you lalalalalalala.”

The “suckers and losers” comment has been confirmed by multiple anonymous sources. I’m guessing I need to remind you that it was anonymous sources that took down Nixon during Watergate...

What is the evidence against any of it? How many people have left the Trump administration (forget about addressing the amount of turnover) and said he’s a dangerous idiot? Oh, let guess: they all have sour grapes, right? Or they were incompetent?

If they were incompetent, why did Trump hire them to begin with? He only hires the best and the brightest, right? That’s something HE himself has said. So either he’s an idiot and can’t hire the right people or he’s the dangerous idiot they all say he is.

Probably both.

Didn’t say they don’t have sources, I said that there’s non-anonymous sources that testify against the anonymous ones, so the non-anonymous ones are, obviously, more believable. The Nixon anonymous sources were then backed by indisputable evidence, which the anti-trump article still lacks. And there’s always going to be a hater/haters of someone, no matter how good or how bad they may be. Peoples political views and values change as well.

Who has contradicted the “suckers and losers” story other than Trump, Kayleigh McEnany, and Fox News (who’s own reporter confirmed The Atlantic’s story)?

https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/fox-news-denies-own-reporter-confirmed-trump-used-suckers-and-losers-1055782/

“On Saturday morning, following a late Friday night tweet from the president calling on Fox News to fire her, the network’s national security correspondent Jennifer Griffin told host Neil Cavuto that Trump did indeed use the sort of language The Atlantic’s Jeffrey Goldberg said the president had.

After being asked about The Atlantic’s framing of Trump’s comments, Griffin told Cavuto that she double-checked with her sources this morning and they reconfirmed both Goldberg’s reporting and her own.”

I told you John Bolton said he was there and that trump never said that, and he hates trump. Was Jennifer Griffin there? And if so, then why wasn’t she willing to go on the record in the article, but was willing to go public later? Seems sketchy.

“I told you John Bolton said he was there and that trump never said that, and he hates trump. Was Jennifer Griffin there? And if so, then why wasn’t she willing to go on the record in the article, but was willing to go public later? Seems sketchy.”

A) “Conservatives” says Bolton is a liar when it’s convenient for them. Now, you’re using a liar as a source. Make up your mind. In addition, I don’t think Bolton was with him 24-7. Trump likes to watch Fox News undisturbed for hours on end.

B) Fox News’ national security correspondent Jennifer Griffin confirmed with her sources...that’s plural...that the story is correct. You are choosing to not believe it. It’s faith-based ignorance. Look up Jennifer Griffin. She has a long history of being a damned good and honorable reporter.

Here’s an entry on her Wiki bio relating directly to what we’re discussing, all with footnotes:

“In September 2020, an uproar arose after Griffin, citing anonymous sources, confirmed key details of an article in The Atlantic that reported President Donald Trump had characterized veterans and fallen American soldiers as "losers" and "suckers." The report had been previously confirmed by the Associated Press and The Washington Post. Trump and several aides who said they were present at the time denied the report, with the president and others calling for Griffin to resign. Numerous reporters, including some from Fox News, defended Griffin's integrity. She stood by her report, characterizing her sources as "unimpeachable."”

Read that again: CONFIRMED BY THE ASSOCIATED PRESS AND THE WASHINGTON POST...NUMEROUS REPORTERS, INCLUDING SOME FROM FOX NEWS, DEFENDED GRIFFIN’S INTEGRITY

You, on the other hand, are using Trump, his press secretary, Fox News brass, and John Bolton as your sources. Think about that.

I present facts. You present beliefs. There really isn’t much more to say.

You said she backed “key details”. What were those key details, I’m just curious

The key details were the details reported in The Atlantic article.

Cmon, man. Don’t be like this.

Look, I get it. You don’t want to believe you’re wrong. No one does. But you’re wrong here.

Donald Trump has conned this country over and over and we are paying and will continue to pay dearly for it. I am 100% voting for Biden, and not because I believe he’s the right man for the job; he’s not. But he way less wrong that Donald Trump is.

The GOP will have you believe that a vote for Biden is a vote for Stalin...do you actually believe that? A Biden-Harris ticket is no further left than a Clinton-Gore ticket. The radical minority of the party will get tamped down and their policies will get watered down by the establiment Democrats.

Oh, he knows he's wrong, least I hope he does because that's the only hope anyone can have for him.
He's just flat out lying, like a proper little shill.

No further than a Clinton-Gore ticket. You mean the impeached Clinton? That guy? Oh boy are we in some trouble in that case if Biden wins. And I need you to be more precise. What exactly were those key details?! I just need an article about what Griffin confirmed, a video, something.

Bill Clinton was the best Republican president this country ever had. And if his being impeached is a big deal, don’t disregard Trump’s impeachment.

You keep harping on the key details. Read the article, because anything I tell you, you just choose not to believe.

As far as requiring video as proof, I guess the next thing you’re going to try to convince me of is OJ’s innocence?

“Best republican president”?! Ever heard of Ronald Reagan? What article, the AP one? See, there isn’t anything explaining Griffin’s “confirmation”. No, OJ was most definitely guilty.

Ronald Reagan blew the federal debt out of the water and tripled it. Bill Clinton balanced the budget and presided over one of the strongest economies since WWII...not to mention he got more people off welfare than any GOP president ever has.

https://www.history.com/news/clinton-1990s-welfare-reform-facts

Read The Atlantic article. That’s the article Jennifer Griffin confirmed and was also confirmed by the AP and the WP.

How can you say OJ was guilty? Did you see him do it? Where’s the video? None of that seems sketchy to you?

If you don’t see the inconsistencies in your statements, there’s no help for you. You’re being willfully ignorant.

Thanks for you comment below.

Stop saying Bill Clinton was a Republican how stupid can you be. And Ronald Reagan took down the Berlin Wall and ended the Cold War, just to name two of the amazing things he accomplished in his presidency. (I don’t know a ton about the guy, I was born about 20 years after his terms, but I know that he was a great president, and I know how AWFUL Clinton was, it’s partially why Hillary lost! And yes, she lost) Cheated on his wife, then she’s murdered. “None of that seems sketchy to you?” You also literally said “next thing you’re gonna try to convince me of OJ’s innocence” now you’re asking how he’s guilty. Maybe you got the Biden dementia too. But yeah, I’m ignorant.

Awesome deflection you got there.

Now I do understand you were born after Reagan died or something like that, and hearing from those who actually lived through it would disrupt the cute little fiction bubble carved out for you by some other clueless dolt, but if you can look it up - and I don't mean in the traditional way for Trumptards which is via some YouTube video showing the mighty FUAX News trounce the not-as-cool CNN or whatever you goosestepping Brownshirts are guided by Facebook to refer to today - that might be worth trying. That thing above your neck has got to be for something more than making this "reeeee reeeee reeeee" echo. Just gotta be.

So much this right here ^^^^^

First off, wha? Look up what? And second off, since when we’re you a part of this conversation!

Goodness, you spew that pile of nonsensical gibberish that one can only hope for your sake was revisionist in nature and rather addled by the drink as opposed to pure unadulterated idiocy and you have the audacity to call someone else stupid?

ClintonS - the BOTH of them - were always known as Republicans in disguise, and Cowboy Ronny didn't do jack shit other than give an adorable speech at the wall, which came down in 1991, also the year the Cold War ended, also the the third year after his replacement became President.

Stop being a sadly misinformed shill and read a book.

Sphincters make for poor hats. You should remove yours from your head.

I seriously don’t think a word you said in this comment made sense. You were doing well up until this one. Now I’m just as lost as you seem to be.

“Stop saying Bill Clinton was a Republican how stupid can you be.”

Apparently not a stupid as you. That’s referencing a Michael Moore quote. Back to school, junior.

“And Ronald Reagan took down the Berlin Wall and ended the Cold War, just to name two of the amazing things he accomplished in his presidency.”

That’s one thing since they’re both tied together. And he did that by outspending the Soviets. Remember Star Wars? Not the movie, the bogus orbiting missile-interception system, also known as SDI. But here’s the thing...the Soviets were on their last legs anyway. Reagan was just lucky enough to push them over the edge.

“I don’t know a ton about the guy, I was born about 20 years after his terms”

Clearly.

“but I know that he was a great president”

So you don’t know what Reaganomics is or the Iran-Contra scandal? Read up, buttercup.

“and I know how AWFUL Clinton was, it’s partially why Hillary lost! And yes, she lost”

Wrong again. Bill Clinton presided over one of the greatest economic booms since WWII and it was a direct result of his policies. History looks favorably on Bill Clinton. Sorry you’re too brainwashed to acknowledge it.

It’s hard to figure out the rest of your gobbledegook, but if you’re referring to Bill cheating on Hilliary, if you’re a Trump supporter, that really shouldn’t be an issue.

“Maybe you got the Biden dementia too. But yeah, I’m ignorant.”

Are you even old enough to to vote?

''Eagles4_LifeYT 0 ups, 17h, 4 replies

Stop saying Bill Clinton was a Republican how stupid can you be.''

''VagabondSouffle1 up, 16h, 1 reply

Goodness, you spew that pile of nonsensical gibberish that one can only hope for your sake was revisionist in nature and rather addled by the drink as opposed to pure unadulterated idiocy and you have the audacity to call someone else stupid?

....''

There, I've been a part of this conversation we're having since right there and then. 16hrs ago.

If you ain't liking it, I'm totally cool with that.
I understand as well, because that big dollop of ignorance that comes with your uneducated child mind sure is a hindrance. But that's on you, kid, for being and acting like an idiot jumping on a bandwagon you haven't a clue about yet pretend you can pretend you do when it comes to those who actually do.

Grow a brain.

Also the cheating thing was about OJ, I should’ve clarified yhat

No, I’m not old enough lol. I am very intrigued by politics tho, and have gotten really into them this year. Could you explain to me the Reaganomics please? I haven’t heard of that before.

A little more school for you...

“Clinton was the highest-ranking modern President, ahead of Ronald Reagan (11th), Lyndon Johnson (12th), John Kennedy (14th) and George H.W. Bush (17th).

The official top 10 list was topped by Abraham Lincoln as the greatest President, followed by George Washington, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, Teddy Roosevelt, Thomas Jefferson, Harry Truman, Dwight Eisenhower, Clinton, Andrew Jackson and Woodrow Wilson.“

“The most polarizing Presidents among the scholars were Andrew Jackson, Ronald Reagan, Woodrow Wilson and Lyndon Johnson. A significant number of scholars put these four Presidents in both the “best” and “worst” categories.”

Here’s the link. Do some reading.

https://constitutioncenter.orgblog/bill-clinton-ranks-high-in-new-historical-presidents-study

Ok, who’s coming up with those rankings?! Anderson Cooper?!

Because that statement doesn’t say “she confirmed the article”, only “key details”

“Ok, who’s coming up with those rankings?! Anderson Cooper?!”

The National Constitution Center
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Constitution_Center

“No, I’m not old enough lol. I am very intrigued by politics tho, and have gotten really into them this year. Could you explain to me the Reaganomics please? I haven’t heard of that before.”

Reaganomics is also known as supply-side economics. The simple explanation is that you give tax cuts to the rich and deregulate industry to stimulate competition and growth. In general, it’s bad, because you’re trusting industry to regulate itself and it never works. It may have worked short-term in the 80s because it helped stifle inflation, but long-term, it’s really not good for regular people like you and me.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reaganomics

I can appreciate you wanting to understand politics but it seems like you’re in the formative pupal stage where outside influences and opinions will shape your opinions for better or worse.

The most important thing I can impart on you, all snark aside, is that an open mind will get you further than a closed fist. If you’re not old enough to vote but you’re already dropping the “Biden is senile” quips and “Reagan was great even though I don’t know anything about him” and “Bill Clinton was terrible” you have much to learn. I hope for your own sake, you’ll be willing to listen to people who actually know what they’re talking about and not trolls and kooks who practice politics of spite.

Read. Read read read read read and read more. Read things you might not be comfortable with or view as “bad”. You may discover that a belief you had about a perspective is completely wrong. Knowledge is power.

Also during his first term, Reagan's Trickle Down was a massive failure for the economy, with unemployment, inflation and deficits setting records.

I didn’t want to explode the kid’s head. Give the absolute basic facts and hope he can draw his own conclusions. Like Reagan was a controversial president in terms of rankings and Bill Clinton is in the top ten...why? Discuss...

Although looking at what he’s done so far, he may already be too far gone.

Well at least you were being civil with him and providing info he might look into.

I kinda regret being harsh on him, but it started when he started insulting me on a comment I made on another meme just like he did here with you, which I saw later via his profile. So I want to teach the kid the error of his ignorant ways. The audacity - and he's not the only child on the site doing it - of acting like he knows more about something that occurred when his parents were barely past potty trained than those who lived through it.

Shame we can't post voice clips here, as I do a spot-on ''There you go again'' complete with his slight head tremor/shake ta boot, and I've been doing it since watching that debate live.

Don’t regret going hard on this little shit stick. He’s continued his same track of being an arrogant, ignorant little asshole.

Check my posts if interested.

haha, thanks.
I'll be back later to catch up on the reading,,,

Thank you for the advice and explanation! I will continue to educate myself.

Right-wing stupidity is protected just like left-wing stupidity is.

Desecrating the red, white, and blue is desecrating the flag. These quotes are directly from the US flag code.

“The flag should never be used as wearing apparel, bedding, or drapery. It should never be festooned, drawn back, nor up, in folds, but always allowed to fall free. Bunting of blue, white, and red, always arranged with the blue above, the white in the middle, and the red below, should be used for covering a speaker’s desk, draping the front of the platform, and for decoration in general.”

— That’s a big one at Trump rallies.

“The flag should never have placed upon it, nor on any part of it, nor attached to it any mark, insignia, letter, word, figure, design, picture, or drawing of any nature.”

— Hey, QAnon, heeeeyyyyy

“No part of the flag should ever be used as a costume or athletic uniform. However, a flag patch may be affixed to the uniform of military personnel, firemen, policemen, and members of patriotic organizations. The flag represents a living country and is itself considered a living thing. Therefore, the lapel flag pin being a replica, should be worn on the left lapel near the heart.”

— Altering the American flag as an advertisement for a movement, like Black Lives Matter and Blue Lives Matter, is desecration under the law.

So, whether you burn the flag, wrap yourself in the flag or alter the flag for anything other than a patch on a civil service or military uniform, it’s viewed as the same violation.

Exactly. But somehow the right’s desecration is somehow not as bad as the left’s desecration.

Go figure. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Don't worry, it's not an unborn human, so it's ok to let that slide.

- sorry, couldn't resist ;p

heh heh

If you wear the flag, according to the US flag code, you’re desecrating it. It doesn’t get much simpler than that.

Both burning and wearing the flag are also protected by the First Amendment. To try to abolish either would be un-American.

So quit crying about a piece of burning fabric, you big bitch baby. 😂

“So who are you? Maybe I know a previous persona. I’m not used to the new accounts.”

Get used to it, f**k knuckle.

“Imgflip may not be controlled by the Government, but Dylan is.”

Don’t know who Dylan is. Don’t care.

It never ceases to amaze me at the hypocrisy of people like you. You want everything catered to your whims and no one should ever be able to tell you “no.” The tantrums you throw scream “on the spectrum.”

No, you shouldn’t commit crimes against children. Nor should you host a platform and permit people who do to prey on them.

Now you’re spiraling off into tin hat territory. :::Windows closing theme:::

“Not a government controlled entity!
LMAO
You’re on a roll.”

Social media doesn’t have to give a f**k about your “First Amendment rights” if you said something against their terms of service.

ImgFlip reserves the right to refuse service to assholes like you.

“Now do one about crimes against children.”

What’s to do? You shouldn’t commit crimes against children. You disagree?

Wah. Tough talker, too.

For all I know, you deleted your own posts, you clown. No matter what way you try and twist it, you’re wrong.

And remember, the First Amendment applies to everyone, not just the speech you like.

“Hahahaha after I get censored you lecture me on the 1st.

Classic imgflip. Good one.”

Imgflip is a private website and not a government controlled entity. If someone deleted your comments, it’s not a First Amendment issue.

This completes your civics lesson for today. Now go drink your bah-bah.