Trump lumped

67 views
Skip to first unread message

Euwe

unread,
Feb 9, 2017, 10:02:56 PM2/9/17
to political...@googlegroups.com

Irie

unread,
Feb 9, 2017, 10:28:39 PM2/9/17
to Political Euwetopia
LMAO, did you actually expect anything else from the alt-left 9th?

Lobo

unread,
Feb 9, 2017, 10:30:27 PM2/9/17
to Political Euwetopia
His hands are getting smaller by the minute... and smaller... and smaller...

Irie

unread,
Feb 9, 2017, 10:37:58 PM2/9/17
to Political Euwetopia
Did you?

Lobo

unread,
Feb 9, 2017, 10:57:14 PM2/9/17
to Political Euwetopia
One of the three is a GW Bush appointee. The decision was unanimous.


On Thursday, February 9, 2017 at 10:37:58 PM UTC-5, Irie wrote:
Did you?

herman

unread,
Feb 9, 2017, 11:07:06 PM2/9/17
to political...@googlegroups.com
http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-live-updates-9th-circuit-arguments-hillary-clinton-trolls-trump-on-his-1486686508-htmlstory.html

How would the Supreme Court react to Trump over the travel ban? Not well, say legal experts

Several legal experts who weighed in on the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals decision to not order a reinstatement of President Trump's travel ban said they thought the administration had slim chances if it appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.
UC Irvine Law School dean Erwin Chemerinsky said it was difficult to predict whether the Supreme Court would review the decision.

“They don’t want a 4-4 split, but they really like having the last word on high-profile cases,” the constitutional law expert said. 

John Yoo, a law professor at UC Berkeley who worked for President George W. Bush’s administration and helped write a memo justifying torture of terrorism suspects, said the Supreme Court was unlikely to agree to review the decision.

The inclusion of green-card holders in the travel ban doomed it legally, Yoo said, and the Supreme Court rarely agrees to hear such emergency appeals in any case.

Jessica Levinson, a law professor at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles, said she thought the Supreme Court would take up the question of whether to reinstate the travel ban.

"This is probably going to the Supreme Court, but I don't think it's going anywhere good for Donald Trump — even if the Supreme Court rules along party lines and is deadlocked, because the lower court's decision would stand."

If the Supreme Court did not take up the case or took it and was split in its ruling, the decision of the 9th Circuit Court would stand.

If it did not go to directly to the Supreme Court, the Trump administration could also ask the full 9th Circuit to review its request, said Margo Schlanger, a law professor at the University of Michigan who was the head of civil rights for the Department of Homeland Security under President Obama.

But with a unanimous decision from the three judges who issued Thursday's opinion, Trump's chances are not good in what's known as one of the country's most reliably liberal appeals courts.

Irie

unread,
Feb 9, 2017, 11:30:59 PM2/9/17
to Political Euwetopia
Is that supposed to discount the fact that they are well known for their left-wing activist proclivities?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

herman

unread,
Feb 9, 2017, 11:37:01 PM2/9/17
to Political Euwetopia
It means a non-left-wing judge voted against trump's ban.

Irie

unread,
Feb 9, 2017, 11:39:29 PM2/9/17
to Political Euwetopia
The "nutty ninth" strikes again.....LOL

Ragnar

unread,
Feb 9, 2017, 11:42:04 PM2/9/17
to Political Euwetopia
A bush appointee is now a commie sympathizer .......how far right are the white terrorists prepared to go before the US is in flames? 

herman

unread,
Feb 9, 2017, 11:42:23 PM2/9/17
to political...@googlegroups.com
The "nutty ninth", mayhap.....AND a non-left-wing judge.



On Thursday, February 9, 2017 at 11:39:29 PM UTC-5, Irie wrote:
The "nutty ninth" strikes again.....LOL

herman

unread,
Feb 9, 2017, 11:44:20 PM2/9/17
to Political Euwetopia
<<< A bush appointee is now a commie sympathizer >>>

In the GOP's New Order, keeping track of when being a commie sympathizer is good and when it's bad is perplexing.

herman

unread,
Feb 9, 2017, 11:48:48 PM2/9/17
to Political Euwetopia
Former Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton appeared to deliver a burn against President Trump on Thursday over his defeat in court:

 Follow
 Hillary Clinton ✔ @HillaryClinton
3-0
7:17 PM - 9 Feb 2017
  89,522 89,522 Retweets   234,424 234,424 likes

Clinton was presumably referring to the unanimous ruling by a three-judge panel of the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.

Irie

unread,
Feb 9, 2017, 11:50:05 PM2/9/17
to Political Euwetopia
Shame they have such a history of being reversed....

BENCH MEMOS NRO’S HOME FOR JUDICIAL NEWS AND ANALYSIS. Ninth Circuit Leading the Pack for ‘Most Reversed’ 

SHARE ARTICLE ON FACEBOOKSHARE TWEET ARTICLETWEET PLUS ONE ARTICLE ON GOOGLE PLUS+1 PRINT ARTICLE ADJUST FONT SIZEAA by JONATHAN KEIM March 13, 2014 4:25 PM @JONATHANKEIM 

Last week, the Supreme Court released this term’s fifth third opinion unanimously reversing the Ninth Circuit (the third first and fourth second were released the preceding 

week). This gives the Ninth Circuit an early lead in the race for the title of “Most Reversed.” [UPDATE: 3/13/2014 at 5:28 PM: An observant reader draws my attention to

 two previous unanimous reversals this term, one in December and one in February, giving the Ninth Circuit an even bigger lead with 5 unanimous reversals in a row.] The 

Supreme Court rarely takes cases where a lower court was simply incorrect. There usually must be some other reason for the Supreme Court to take the case, such as to 

correct a difference in opinion between the courts of appeals, to resolve a question that has confused or misled lower courts, or sometimes just because the case is too 

important to ignore. Within these boundaries, it is generally easier to convince the Supreme Court that it should take a case when the court of appeals got it wrong. That

 means that in general, we ought to expect the Supreme Court to reverse more often than it affirms. But as Court-watchers know, even with these qualifications, the Ninth

 Circuit has a reputation as a magnet for the high court’s negative attention. Although recent years have seen other circuits competing with the Ninth Circuit for the title of 

“Most Reversed,” the Ninth still appears to hold the unquestioned title. The Ninth Circuit’s best showing in recent years was October Term 2009, with a 60 percent reversal

 rate in the 15 cases on which certiorari was granted. The Sixth Circuit got the prize for highest reversal rate that year, with seven cases resulting in seven reversals, while 

the Seven Circuit came in a close second (91 percent reversal rate in eleven cases).   But in 2010, perhaps seeking to reclaim its position at the top of the heap, the Ninth 

Circuit was reversed a startling 19 times (79 percent), three times as many reversals as most circuits had cases before the Supreme Court. The same pattern continued in the 

2011 (71 percent) and 2012 terms (86 percent), when the Ninth Circuit was reversed more than twice as many times as most circuits had cases before the Court. The Court 

is done releasing opinions for this week, but will resume again next week. What will next week hold? We shall see.

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/bench-memos/373273/ninth-circuit-leading-pack-most-reversed-jonathan-keim

Lobo

unread,
Feb 9, 2017, 11:57:42 PM2/9/17
to Political Euwetopia
<<Is that supposed to discount the fact that they are well known for their left-wing activist proclivities?>>

When they rule as a panel, the decisions are usually 2-1, with the right-wing activist Bush appointee the holdout. 

This was 3-0.


On Thursday, February 9, 2017 at 11:30:59 PM UTC-5, Irie wrote:

herman

unread,
Feb 9, 2017, 11:59:17 PM2/9/17
to Political Euwetopia
A non-left-wing judge voted against trump's ban, irie.

As for right-wing NR's assessment:  Doesn't look to me that it's all that valid.

Back to the topic:  At least one non-right-wing judge voted against trump's ban.  SHOULD trump be reckless enough to appeal to the SC, he runs the very real risk that the Ninth's decision won't be reversed.


Lobo

unread,
Feb 10, 2017, 12:01:04 AM2/10/17
to Political Euwetopia
Which simply points to the fact that until Scalia kicked the bucket, we had a rightwing actist SCOTUS for many years.

(And, sadly, will again with Republicans literally stealing a Supreme Court seat).

Ragnar

unread,
Feb 10, 2017, 12:04:23 AM2/10/17
to Political Euwetopia
Orange rat fucker is going to have a stroke...he gets punked about 50 times a day throughout the world......death by tweet...delicious. 

Irie

unread,
Feb 10, 2017, 12:05:22 AM2/10/17
to Political Euwetopia
LOL....the judge was appointed by GW ergo he is "right-wing activist"....

you can do better...

According to The Recorder, Clifton says that he is close to “what there is of an organized Republican Party in Hawaii,” but he says that he has “no strongly pronounced political philosophy.”

This is probably part of the reason why his confirmation process was so smooth, and why he was confirmed in a unanimous vote.

He’s even well-liked in the mostly Democratic state of Hawaii, where he actually was endorsed by two Democratic senators.

“The longtime business litigator and Republican Party leader from Hawaii was approved 98-0 in July,” The Recorder observed in 2002. “The approval was due, in part, to the fact that there was nothing for potential opponents to grab on to — he never helped organize farm worker unions, never wrote briefs arguing against Roe v. Wade, never did anything but be a lawyer’s lawyer while managing to pull off the not-easy feat of becoming a well-liked Republican in Democrat-dominated Hawaii.”


herman

unread,
Feb 10, 2017, 12:09:38 AM2/10/17
to Political Euwetopia
He's a right-winger, irie.

Nothing in your article contradicts this.

Irie

unread,
Feb 10, 2017, 12:11:42 AM2/10/17
to Political Euwetopia
I'm still waiting on support of the claim.

herman

unread,
Feb 10, 2017, 12:14:12 AM2/10/17
to Political Euwetopia
The claim that the Republican judge is a right-winger?

He's a Republican - even your (ahem) article states that.

Lobo

unread,
Feb 10, 2017, 12:20:41 AM2/10/17
to political...@googlegroups.com
He's as much a right-wing activist as the other two are "left-wing activists". Bush and Karl Rove certainly didn't appoint any liberals to the bench.

BTW: All they did was keep a stay in place until the case can be reviewed. Trump's and his lawyers' argument is that his Executive Orders are "unreviewable" by the courts.

I don't seem to recall your taking that position when president Obama issued an EO on immigration.


On Friday, February 10, 2017 at 12:05:22 AM UTC-5, Irie wrote:

Exposeposers

unread,
Feb 10, 2017, 9:44:42 AM2/10/17
to Political Euwetopia
LMAO!  A middle school civics class could have written an order that would have sustained.  What you blatantly omit is the clueless Alt-Right administration is made up of clueless idiots, like their followers.  The drool was barely dry before Trump was Whack-A-Moled!

Irie

unread,
Feb 10, 2017, 2:22:41 PM2/10/17
to Political Euwetopia
I don't disagree.  He could easily sidestep the issue (irrespective of how much the court overstepped their authority) by simply stating Greencard holders were exempt.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~`

Irie

unread,
Feb 10, 2017, 2:25:27 PM2/10/17
to Political Euwetopia
Still waiting on the support of your claim.  tick tock......
Oh, maybe you under the impression right wing and republican are synonymous?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

PirateLT

unread,
Feb 10, 2017, 3:20:24 PM2/10/17
to Political Euwetopia
One of the Judges was appointed by the Alt Left George Bush...........

PirateLT

unread,
Feb 10, 2017, 3:21:07 PM2/10/17
to Political Euwetopia
Why do you think we need this ban?
Message has been deleted

Irie

unread,
Feb 10, 2017, 4:04:28 PM2/10/17
to Political Euwetopia

No shit sherlock, did you read the thread?  From that hotbed of alt-right thinking known as Hawaii no less.
~~~~~~~~~~~

Irie

unread,
Feb 10, 2017, 4:18:00 PM2/10/17
to Political Euwetopia
Because we have had at least 380 of the assholes slip into the country since 9-11.  And that's just the ones who we have caught planning terrorist attacks.  
Despite the alt-left mentality, we aren't required to open our borders to any yahoo that wants to come here with good intentions or bad.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~

PirateLT

unread,
Feb 10, 2017, 4:21:17 PM2/10/17
to Political Euwetopia
Not from those countries. The ACTUAL counties that caused us harm are not on the list.  It is bogus, fear mongering and frankly stupdi.

Xtal97

unread,
Feb 10, 2017, 4:50:29 PM2/10/17
to Political Euwetopia
Uh, who exactly is making THAT assertion?

Irie

unread,
Feb 10, 2017, 5:08:52 PM2/10/17
to Political Euwetopia
Uh, you are just plain wrong.  But hey, I'm OK with adding Pakistan, Lebanon, Palestine, Egypt if that helps.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Xtal97

unread,
Feb 10, 2017, 5:19:41 PM2/10/17
to Political Euwetopia
So, where does the "racist, misogamist" part show up? The only really "shocking" part of the quotes from that link was the observation of the use of the word "unreviewability" in a decision from a Federal Appellate Court.

The only really worrisome conclusion here is to wonder if academic standards have dropped to such pathetically low levels that actual human beings could have read that part of the decision and NOT conclude that we've fallen down some kind of anti-intellectual rabbit hole and should be collectively embarrassed that this is the best that the most talented and intelligent legal minds in the country can do!!! What's next? Are we going to see the word "supercalifragallisticexpialledocious" used in a set of permanent orders?! Are we going to have to start watching a TV game show called "Ow My Balls?" Are we going to see the Academy Awards swept by the hit movie "Ass?" Is the company producing the new electrolyte boosting sports drink "Brando!" going to be put into bankruptcy when the brightest mind in the world points out that you can't grow crops by watering plants with it? Are IQs going to crater to the point where we have to put our job descriptions on our shirt sleeves?! These are some of the very real fears that should worry us all when we see this sort of thing!

Minister Rebel

unread,
Feb 10, 2017, 6:48:42 PM2/10/17
to Political Euwetopia
Weary the idiot making shit up without posting facts , is this an opinion weary ? You are well known for making shit up as you go along, Alternative facts are your forte.

Justice

unread,
Feb 10, 2017, 7:01:55 PM2/10/17
to Political Euwetopia
They'll destroy their own god to come up with an excuse for Rumpass.

It doesn't matter any longer -- the people who disagree are commies, or nazis (well no, they really mustn't go there).
What CAN they call their enemies.  /Even commies doesn't work any longer.

Oh wait!  they'll call them liberals or journalists!  The new enemy class.



Justice

unread,
Feb 10, 2017, 7:05:52 PM2/10/17
to Political Euwetopia
With scaglia and the originals sitting on the supreme court what would one suspect would be the case?



On Thursday, February 9, 2017 at 11:50:05 PM UTC-5, Irie wrote:

Lobo

unread,
Feb 10, 2017, 7:35:36 PM2/10/17
to political...@googlegroups.com
<<Because we have had at least 380 of the assholes slip into the country since 9-11.  And that's just the ones who we have caught planning terrorist attacks. >>

According to Jeff Sessions, Breitbart and, of course, Donald Trump, anyway. (And where Trump is concerned, you really have to assume that any time he says anything, he's lying).

But as the Cato Institute (hardly a liberal outfit) found out, the number is at worst more like 40 since 1975 (with another 114 involved in non-fatal attacks or planned attacks). And it doesn't identify what kind of terrorists. Irish Catholics/Protestants? Meier Kahane's Jewish Defense League terror group? Radical anti-abortionists? German Red Army Faction? Foreign Symbionese Liberation Army-like groups?

In fact, whether we're talking about rightwing/Christianist or Islamist terrorist attacks (and the former are much more prevalent than the latter in this country), the majority of attacks, attempts and planned attacks have been carried out by American-born US citizens. And even where foreign-born terrorists are concerned, they've all come from the countries Trump EXCLUDED from his ban -- countries, that by strange coincidence, all have major Trump family properties in them -- and none have been refugees.


How Many Foreign-Born Have Committed Terrorist Acts in U.S.?

The point of the order is to keep would-be foreign terrorists out of the United States. That raises the question of how many foreign-born people have committed such crimes in the U.S. Trump’s executive order directs the secretary of homeland security and the U.S. attorney general to find out.


The order instructs the two departments to collect and make publicly available information about foreign nationals who have been charged or convicted of terrorism-related offenses, or have been removed from the country because of terrorism-related activity.


Others, though, already have compiled some of that information. One of them is Alex Nowrasteh, an immigration policy analyst at the Cato Institute, who produced a 28-page report last year called “Terrorism and Immigration.”


Nowrasteh’s report identified 154 foreign-born people who were convicted of carrying out or attempting to carry out a terrorist attack in the U.S. over a 40-year period, from 1975 to 2015, most of them on or after Sept. 11, 2001. Forty of the 154 were responsible for 3,024 deaths; 114 of them were not responsible for any deaths.


Only 17 of the 154 foreign-born terrorists were from the seven countries covered by the Trump administration’s temporary travel ban. But none of the 17 was responsible for any deaths — even though the seven countries combined represented almost 40 percent of all refugees accepted into the U.S. in the last 10 years.


As of Jan. 31, a total of 255,708 refugees from Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen have been admitted to the U.S. since the start of 2008. Those countries account for almost 40 percent of the 642,593 total refugees who have come to the U.S. in that time period, according to the State Department’s Refugee Processing Center.

“The first sentence of his order states that it is to ‘protect the American people from terrorist attacks by foreign nationals admitted to the United States,'” Nowrasteh wrote in a blog post. “However, the countries that Trump chose to temporarily ban are not serious terrorism risks.”


In all, the report identified 3,432 murders caused by terrorists on U.S. soil in 40 years, including the 3,024 caused by foreign-born terrorists — or 88 percent all terrorism-related deaths.


To put the terrorism-related murders in perspective, there were about 768,000 total murders during the same 40-year period, the report says. As a percentage, terrorism-related deaths represented 0.39 percent of all murders over the 40 years.

Cato Institute, Sept. 13, 2016: The annual chance of being murdered was 252.9 times as great as dying in an attack committed by a foreign-born terrorist on U.S. soil.

The vast majority of the murders caused by terrorists occurred on Sept. 11, 2001, when 2,983 people — not counting the 19 hijackers — were killed in the deadliest terrorist attack in U.S. history. The 9/11 attacks accounted for 98.6 percent of all people killed in terrorist attacks during the 40 years, the report says.


Trump’s executive order cites the 9/11 attacks three times. But none of the 9/11 hijackers came from any of the seven countries that fall under Trump’s 90-day travel ban. Fifteen were from Saudi Arabia; two were from the United Arab Emirates; one was from Egypt, and one was from Lebanon, according to the CIA.


In the post-9/11 period — from Sept. 12, 2001 to Dec. 31, 2015 — the report found 70 foreign-born individuals who were convicted of carrying out or attempting to carry out a terrorist attack in the U.S. (That includes the Dec. 2, 2015, shooting in San Bernardino that resulted in 14 deaths. Tashfeen Malik, a Pakistan citizen, and her U.S.-born husband, Syed Rizwan Farook, were responsible for those deaths. The Cato report assigns all 14 to Malik, who came to the U.S. in July 2014 on a K-1 visa — the so-called “fiance visa.”)


“From September 12, 2001, until December 31, 2015, 24 people were murdered on U.S. soil by a total of 5 foreign-born terrorists, while 65 other foreign-born terrorists attempted or committed attacks that did not result in fatalities,” the report said. “During the same period, 80 people were murdered in terrorist attacks committed by native-born Americans and those with unknown nationalities.”


Including the 19 hijackers on 9/11, the total number of foreign-born individuals convicted in terrorist cases in the U.S. is 89. So more than half — 58 percent — of foreign-born individuals convicted in terrorist cases in the U.S. were involved in incidents after Sept. 11, 2001.


The United Nations says more than 3 million refugees have resettled in the U.S. since 1975. Only 20 refugees were among the 154 foreign-born terrorists identified in the Cato report, and three of them were responsible for one terrorist death each. (See Table A1 of the report.)


So, refugees were responsible for only three deaths in terrorist attacks, and all three deaths occurred in the 1970s. None of the three terrorists were Syrian refugees, who, under Trump’s order, are indefinitely suspended from being resettled in the U.S.

Cato Institute, Sept. 13, 2016: The chance that an American would be killed in a terrorist attack committed by a refugee was 1 in 3.64 billion a year.

Finally, the Cato report also found that the U.S. government issued more than 1.14 billion visas — including refugee admissions — “under the categories exploited by 154 foreign-born terrorists.”


One important note: Sen. Jeff Sessions — Trump’s nominee to be attorney general — came up with a far higher number of foreign-born individuals who were convicted in terrorist attacks. But Nowrasteh, of the Cato Institute, did an analysis of that list and found it to be flawed.


In a June 22, 2016, press release, Sessions’ Senate office said that the Department of Justice provided the Senate Judiciary Committee’s Subcommittee on Immigration and the National Interest “with a list it maintains of 580 individuals not only implicated, but convicted, of terrorism or terrorism-related offenses between September 11, 2001 and December 31, 2014.” The Justice Department did not identify the nationalities of the 580 individuals, but the subcommittee did some research of its own to find out.

The subcommittee — which Sessions chaired at the time — found that at least 380 foreign nationals on the DOJ list were convicted of terrorism or terrorism-related offenses.

Office of Sen. Sessions, June 22, 2016: Using this list, the Subcommittee conducted open-source research and determined that at least 380 of the 580 were foreign-born (71 were confirmed natural-born, and the remaining 129 are not known). Of the 380 foreign-born, at least 24 were initially admitted to the United States as refugees, and at least 33 had overstayed their visas. Additionally, of those born abroad, at least 62 were from Pakistan, 28 were from Lebanon, 22 were Palestinian, 21 were from Somalia, 20 were from Yemen, 19 were from Iraq, 16 were from Jordan, 17 were from Egypt, and 10 were from Afghanistan.

Nowrasteh, of the Cato Institute, wrote in a recent blog post that actually only 40 of the foreign-born individuals on Sessions’ list were convicted of carrying out or attempting to carry out a terrorist attack in the U.S.

Nowrasteh, Jan. 26: There are at least two major problems with the list. First, you might get the impression that all of those convictions were for terrorist attacks planned on U.S.-soil but only 40, or 6.8 percent, were.  Second, 241 of the 580 convictions, or 42 percent, were not even for terrorism offenses. Many of the investigations started based on a terrorism tip like, for instance, the suspect wanting to buy a rocket-propelled grenade launcher. However, the tip turned out to be groundless and the legal saga ended with only a mundane conviction of receiving stolen cereal.

Nowrasteh told us in an email that Sessions’ list did identity four foreign-born individuals who were not included in the Cato report that should have been included. Those four — added to the 154 identified in the Cato report — would bring the total to 158 foreign-born individuals in 40 years who were convicted of committing or attempting to commit a terrorist act on U.S. soil.


Nowrasteh said he plans to update his report this year, as does Sessions. Trump’s order directs the U.S. attorney general to produce such a report in 180 days, and Sessions is expected to be approved by the full Senate this week after being approved by the Senate Judiciary Committee on Feb. 1.


Irie

unread,
Feb 10, 2017, 7:35:42 PM2/10/17
to Political Euwetopia
What did I make up, biffhole, err I mean reba.  Be specific now.

As if.....

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

herman

unread,
Feb 10, 2017, 10:22:55 PM2/10/17
to Political Euwetopia
Bump for Irie, who seems to need to read and learn from this.

Irie

unread,
Feb 10, 2017, 10:37:10 PM2/10/17
to Political Euwetopia
Thump has not changed a bit either, it seems.  Ho hum.

Help your boy out, what did I "make up"?


herman

unread,
Feb 10, 2017, 10:45:00 PM2/10/17
to political...@googlegroups.com
Irie claimed:

<<< Because we have had at least 380 of the assholes slip into the country since 9-11.  And that's just the ones who we have caught planning terrorist attacks. >>>

Lobo's fact-filled, detailed, and thoughtful response (3 hours ago):
Irie's reply:

(nothing, to date)


Irie

unread,
Feb 10, 2017, 10:53:34 PM2/10/17
to Political Euwetopia
Oh, I forgot, you are the board monitor....and your proclivity to whine when every single post is not responded to has not diminished.  Yawn.....  

So, what is the point...we need to add more counties to the enhanced vetting list...that we missed some assholes?

It certainly isn't that we have NOT had a load of anti-American assholes cross our borders...is it?

Lobo

unread,
Feb 10, 2017, 10:57:07 PM2/10/17
to Political Euwetopia
Actually, the point was that Session/Breitbart/Trump's "380" number was bullshit.
Message has been deleted

Irie

unread,
Feb 10, 2017, 11:13:22 PM2/10/17
to political...@googlegroups.com
So if the number is < 380 it is acceptable?  HUH?

herman

unread,
Feb 10, 2017, 11:28:52 PM2/10/17
to Political Euwetopia
No one has said that.

But Lobo sure has proved that your boy sessions' 380 number is bullshit.

Irie

unread,
Feb 10, 2017, 11:39:18 PM2/10/17
to Political Euwetopia
Well, he posted an article anyway.  I was unaware (but not surprised) that you accepted anything on the internet providing it was from a "fact checker".


herman

unread,
Feb 10, 2017, 11:42:33 PM2/10/17
to Political Euwetopia
I understand you trumpies have to attempt to diss the established fact-checking sites.

After all, with all the lies and fake facts your party has been spewing, you have no choice.

Hell, you have to impugn the Cato Institute as well.

Being a trumpie/groper sure is difficult these days.

Ragnar

unread,
Feb 11, 2017, 5:50:06 AM2/11/17
to Political Euwetopia
48 posts, with sneery the wildest tongue any asshole ever met......natch
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages