cajunrevenge
Well-known member
You mean the guy who encourages a boycott of anything or anyone who doesnt think he is the greatest thing since Jesus?
The Biden Presidency
- Thread starter The Tariff King
- Start date
You mean the guy who encourages a boycott of anything or anyone who doesnt think he is the greatest thing since Jesus?
cajunrevenge
Well-known member
You are right, it's not. The social media companies were willing participants. Trump did things like trying to raise postal rates on Amazon in retaliation for what the Washington Post reported about him. Ome of these is an actual first amendment violation.
I'm wondering if you are able to determine which one is in fact violations of the First Amendment.
cajunrevenge
Well-known member
I am very interested in how you dont think a President retaliating against Amazon for WaPo reporting isnt a first amendment violation.
Beyond that can you remind me who was President and who picked the FBI director when this social media stuff happened. The same guy you want elected in 2024 lol.
Beyond that can you remind me who was President and who picked the FBI director when this social media stuff happened. The same guy you want elected in 2024 lol.
lol. No, I don't. You just made a fool of yourself on the nuclear documents and you're already trying to talk down to me as if you have actually any knowledge on any subject. I just showed you that you're wrong again because the CFO isn't currently helping to get Trump and you're running your yap once again. Dude, shut up and quit embarrassing yourself.
cajunrevenge
Well-known member
I would love to see these posts of mine you are reading because my browser doesnt connect to the fantasy land you are living in. What have I ever said about nuclear documents that I could be proven wrong? Please, show me. With the Trump Org CFO, where did I ever say he was going to testify against Trump. The trial going on right now is about the Trump Organization. How the **** would I know if Trump knew about the fraud. I find it hard to believe he didnt, but thats not how the legal system works. Which you have shown no ability to grasp. I do know Weaselberg is looking at 10+ years in prison if he lies. I know he is still actively working for the Trump Org which is paying him 1.1 million a year. I can speculate that the only reason he is still employed is to pay him off to keep quiet. I think thats what you would assume if we were talking about Democrats. Considering the Trump Orgs defense is to claim Weaselberg committed the fraud all on his own without anyone else knowing about it it seems odd that they wouldnt fire him for dragging the company though all this. You tell me, if you are running a business and your CFO pleads guilty to all kinds of fraud that he did behind your back, who in their right mind wouldnt fire that person immediately?
cajunrevenge
Well-known member
I agree, you just make **** up and then just reply "lol" when called on your BS. Still waiting to see what I was wrong about regarding nuclear documents.
Because you believed the story. You were so upset that Trump shared another country's nuclear secrets.
cajunrevenge
Well-known member
You gonna show this to me anytime soon? How the **** would I know whats in the documents? Get a grip dude.
I don't know if your problem is that you're too doped up to remember what you post or you're just the apex idiot.
Here's you posting the story here while you're trying to smack talk Chop2Chip about it as if it's real.
Here's my response to that earth shaking news that I didn't buy into.
Here's your reply to my snark.
The prosecution rests.
Here's you posting the story here while you're trying to smack talk Chop2Chip about it as if it's real.
Here's my response to that earth shaking news that I didn't buy into.
Here's your reply to my snark.
The prosecution rests.
Last edited:
cajunrevenge
Well-known member
ap·par·ent·ly
/əˈperəntlē/
Learn to pronounce
adverb
adverb: apparently
as far as one knows or can see.
You need anymore english lessons?
/əˈperəntlē/
Learn to pronounce
adverb
adverb: apparently
as far as one knows or can see.
You need anymore english lessons?
Dude, you posted a link to it and tried to smack talk Chop2Chip about it. Take the L and move on.
"And you fell for Daddies BS. Congrats."
You wouldn't be talking smack if you thought it was just a possibility. You're stating it as a fact.
Last edited:
And he's trying to bull**** his way out of it. lololololol
cajunrevenge
Well-known member
You people fall for a lot of Trumps BS so I dont know the exact context I posted that in. I did apologize to Chip in PM because of a post where I was rude to him for no reason. I dont know if that post was it or not. That said, did I miss something that confirmed there were no documents related to nuclear secrets? All I have to go off of are media reports. Theres a reason I constantly say I will wait for an indictment and that's because that has far more reliable facts, which you also misinterpret.
Anyways, where is confirmation there were not any documents related to anything nuclear?
cajunrevenge
Well-known member
I dont know how I am personally supposed to know exactly whats in the documents until its revealed in an indictment or court to begin with, but you are free to prove to me there were no nuclear documents in there. I'll wait.