So you don't talk policy.
The Great Debate
- Thread starter Big Rig
- Start date
It's pretty black and white to shithead racists like Ed the cock
Since the debate it seems Duck Donald is spiraling further down the rabbit hole;
Trump since the debate has spouted off conspiracy theories and rewrites history to aggrandize himself and denigrate others at a fierce level
He insists he never loses. He never lost the 2020 election and won big in the debate
On Friday night, during a rally in Las Vegas that was replete with baseless claims about a variety of topics, he spun up the tale that Harris was receiving the questions during the debate, elevating a conspiracy theory that popped up on social media, he falsely claimed she had hearing devices in her earrings, that she was being coached on what to say in real time. He did it in classic Trump style, citing unspecified hearsay as proof
He is going to have a massive sweep of those who stole the election and of migrants
And, oh yeah, he thinks it is important to tell everyone he hates taylor swift
His meglomania is getting worse and the debate did it
Trump since the debate has spouted off conspiracy theories and rewrites history to aggrandize himself and denigrate others at a fierce level
He insists he never loses. He never lost the 2020 election and won big in the debate
On Friday night, during a rally in Las Vegas that was replete with baseless claims about a variety of topics, he spun up the tale that Harris was receiving the questions during the debate, elevating a conspiracy theory that popped up on social media, he falsely claimed she had hearing devices in her earrings, that she was being coached on what to say in real time. He did it in classic Trump style, citing unspecified hearsay as proof
He is going to have a massive sweep of those who stole the election and of migrants
And, oh yeah, he thinks it is important to tell everyone he hates taylor swift
His meglomania is getting worse and the debate did it
Last edited:
The only one spreading Hate Messages is Trump himself:
Trump says he hates Taylor Swift after she endorses Kamala Harris
Before announcing his feelings, ex-president had posted AI images suggesting Swift had endorsed him for president
www.theguardian.com
Trump says he hates Taylor Swift after she endorses Kamala Harris
Before announcing his feelings, ex-president had posted AI images suggesting Swift had endorsed him for president
Trump says he hates Taylor Swift after she endorses Kamala Harris
Before announcing his feelings, ex-president had posted AI images suggesting Swift had endorsed him for president
www.theguardian.com
As are most "undocumented immigrants, Trump etc, call "illegal." However, they are legal as refugees under PL170 and Immigration law. They apply and get papers for a Court date to review their refugee claim. The problem with a shortage of immigration judges is that their Court date may be 2-5 years. Now, with Biden, most have to apply via the app while outside of the country (Mexico) to get pre-reviewed before being allowed into the US. Otherwise, I will be turned away if I slip in. We do not have open borders, and it's just a political lie to use to deceive folks.
Trump admires Hitler and is preparing the US very much like how Hitler got his Nazi followers with lies, misinformation, and conspiracy silliness. His niece confirms Trump has Hitler's books in his bedroom.
So the guy who claims this horseshit is also the "Chairman of Students for Trump"..... Of course he is.
Cannibalism in the Americas - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
There is no credible account of cannibalism in Haiti and no allegations after the late 1800's.
Looks like possibly the $10m for Russian false information is being poured out here. Regarding the Affidavit:
REAL or FAKE? The ABC News whistleblower's affidavit has been released and there is an ongoing debate about its authenticity
The document doesn't contain many obvious grammatical or spelling errors, but some of the phrasing is awkward or overly informal for a legal affidavit. Affidavits are typically very formal documents, and any sloppiness can signal potential problems:
Example 2: "where issues that were important to everyday Americans would be discussed": The phrase "everyday Americans" is a colloquialism more often found in political rhetoric or news commentary than in legal documents. While this isn’t inherently incorrect, it is not typical for legal affidavits to use such informal language.
Example 3: "Chief Executive Officers of my employer": While this isn’t grammatically wrong, a lawyer drafting such a document would more likely use "executives" or name specific roles rather than this awkward phrasing.
"significant concerns about potential retribution" feels like jargon that a layperson might use when trying to sound "legal" without understanding the proper terminology. It’s worth asking whether a lawyer would use such language.
Inconsistent Formality
In legal documents, tone consistency is key. This document flips between formal legal language and informal colloquial expressions, which raises concerns.
Example: "For the record, I do not endorse Donald Trump..." A lawyer would likely phrase this in a more formal manner, like "It is noted that the affiant does not endorse Donald Trump..." The current phrasing feels like it is designed for media consumption or the court of public opinion, rather than an official affidavit.
Inclusion of specifics: Normally, legal affidavits provide facts, not opinions or generalized observations like "many employees of ABC who were looking for a fair and honest debate." Such language doesn’t belong in an affidavit and sounds more like an op-ed or public commentary.
Unprofessional Content and Tone
Allegations without evidence: The document makes several serious allegations, such as claims about bias and specific restrictions imposed by the Harris campaign. However, these are presented as factual but without the kind of backing or documentation you'd expect in an affidavit. If this were meant for legal purposes, there would likely be more effort to cite specific communications, dates, names, etc.
Unusual Evidence Documentation: The statement about sending a certified letter to oneself and keeping it unopened, as well as mailing an unopened Federal Express package to themselves, feels strange. While it's a method used in some cases to establish a paper trail, it’s an antiquated practice when modern communication methods (e.g., timestamped emails) are widely available and reliable. The focus on "remaining unopened for any future investigations" feels almost like a theatrical gesture rather than a necessary legal step.
Affirmation Process and Scope of Documentation
Certified letter to Speaker Mike Johnson: This might raise suspicion. If this were a legitimate whistleblower case involving potential media bias, why is the letter being sent to the Speaker of the House? It could be perceived as a political move rather than a formal, legal whistleblower process.
Timing: The affidavit is sworn just one day before the scheduled debate, and all the documentation is tied to a very tight timeline. This raises questions about why this was only documented at the last minute. If the whistleblower had these concerns for a while, why not come forward earlier to ensure the issues are addressed?
General legal structure: The document lacks certain key components of a well-drafted affidavit. For example, affidavits normally focus heavily on factual information, with clear and numbered paragraphs laying out the affiant’s statements. This document reads more like a narrative. It also does not clearly distinguish between observed facts and hearsay/opinion, which is essential in affidavits.
Verification: The final section, where the affiant states they are making the affidavit under penalty of perjury, is standard, but there’s no indication in this version that it was witnessed by a notary public. (This could just be redacted, but it’s worth noting.) Additionally, the affidavit lacks legal specificity in asserting the consequences of false statements—affidavits often emphasize the legal weight of "perjury" more directly.
While there are no glaring spelling errors or wildly incorrect grammar, the overall tone and structure suggest the document was not written by a professional lawyer accustomed to drafting legal affidavits. The mix of informal language, opinion-based statements, vague claims without strong backing, and the emphasis on political theater rather than legal procedure raises several red flags. It is possible this document was designed to serve more as a political statement or public relations tool than a formal legal whistleblower affidavit, which would require much more precision and rigor.
This document contains elements that may indeed point to it being a hoax or, at the very least, a politically motivated piece rather than a legitimate legal submission.
Black Insurrectionist--I FOLLOW BACK TRUE PATRIOTS
@DocNetyoutube
Why tf would ABC do that, Mitch?
They dgaf who wins the election. They just want ratings for running debates.
So Mitch, wtf is the point of this hoaky affidavit being released if the name of the deponent and the notary are blacked out?
Does anything shit its pants more blatantly as horseshit than a "leak" that is anonymized???
Surely if the deponent was serious, he would come out in public and quit his job.
True but my comment still applies considering how many Canadians I know who are too lazy or uninterested in a 3 minute wait in line.
The affidavit even if it is true mentions nothing. It says the deponent has "observed" a bias at ABC. How do you qualify that as a credible observation? It then mentions that there were certain topics such as Biden's health, that Harris's team did not want to be questioned on. I am sure Trump's team would have a similar agreement regarding his recent legal troubles.
Again an example where you show beyond any doubt that a source used my Mitchell is lying to him.
His response. Laughter.
He has basically admitted he is here to troll.
