Trump's presidency? It certainly is a sham.

No surprise you can't understand plain English. Being in a cult of personality has destroyed your less than stellar brain.
You describe Trump lying under oath as him being smart to not implicate himself but don't realize that means you admit the truth is he's a criminal.

Mueller said exactly what he means, DOJ rules did not allow him to even consider criminal charges, but congress can...here's 400 pages of evidence about multiple high crimes that does not in any way exonerate the president. Congress has a duty to examine and act on that evidence. You hear that as "total exoneration, case closed".

What about the other three scandals that were exposed today? How will you excuse today's undeniable criminality, unpatriotic incivility, and his admission that his presidency is illegitimate?

One, perjury by dozens of official Trumpees about the racist census changes that prove they were designed to give "Republicans and non Hispanic whites an electoral advantage" and hurt the Democrats, and would have that effect according to studies they also hid and lied under oath about. Proof of the racist conspiracy going back to 2015 was uncovered, contradicting their testimony that the order came directly from the DOJ based on questions first raised in 2017. Gonna just wait until 10am to hear the party line in court, then whatever new lie they tell will be your answer I expect.

Two, the constantly shifting denial of the official Whitehouse orders to hide the John McCain and barring of sailors from the ship from events because the Biggest Loser throws a childish temper tantrum when he hears or reads the name. Gonna blame that on a subordinate and deny responsibility for those under him acting incredibly, offensively unpatriotic and disrespecting the military on his behalf in his name purely to stroke his ego...."with good intentions" (keeping Trump's ego unbruised), and just ignore the reason they had to do it too I expect.

Three, the accidental admission that Russia actually got him elected. That you'll call an intentional misunderstanding of a poorly worded tweet by the fake news lefty media not a Freudian slip or confession I expect.

Thanks for the opportunity to shine more light on more daily proof he's illegitimate, unfit for office, and surrounded by unscrupulous and lawless sycophants.

Thanks Lilithia-I suspect that because of my recent foray with another user here suffering from chronic corn-cob syndrome, that the admins have hobbled me and this so with a predictable incivility, and have left me to figure it out on my own-I have NOT in my quest to clean the dead viddoe embeds up here,violated any rules of decorum relative to the hard-earned ability of raising the dead however, and would like to know why I am being treated like a second-class citizen of the site, if in fact, my suspicions are true....

If in fact this is the case, again: The mob rule mentality of relatively cattle-like predictability-rears again and again, an over-sized head...

If this is not in fact the case, apologies, I have no way of knowing yet as I have not had my question answered by an admin yet...

@artician- You are correct in your observations the reason being....currently a recent victim of two HPD officers willing to perjure themselves before a jury in order to satisfy their egos and their state mandate to fill beds in their jails (or prison, had we decided not to take a plea down to keep them from sealing our fate).
Felony obstruction for mouthing-off in the back of a cop car to a couple of complete douchebags who could not stand that we would not let them treat us like some kid a couple of jocks would have bullied in junior high.

The official statement was alleged that their lives had been threatened which when in fact we surmised in colorful detail their mommy and daddy issues, their obvious history of abuse and or neglect, questioning their sexuality and manhood simultaneously, all while we voluntarily accompanied them into said car in cuffs from a girl's apartment after we gave them the benefit of the doubt and rendered I.D. to them and TOLD them we had a warrant for an unpaid traffic ticket.

Was in the home of a friend when her ADT system (installed a day earlier) sent a false alarm-They had tried to call her but she was passed-out with an I.V. in her arm (vitamin treatment) bed-ridden with a torn ligament. Cops came to the door, was just waking-up and (stupidly) let them in and addressed their incivility when they after determining that the alarm call was false, began to ask me what my "problem" was-Asked them why they had to act like a couple of uncivil douchebags in someone's home and asked politely if the one cop, would remove his dark sunglasses and that they were making me nervous.

This is Texas BTW, land of the most redneck fucks to be found anywhere in the planet of police.

Meet an an idiot who poked the rabid dogs with a stick and found soon that we had over-stepped our "freedom of speech."

Yeah, fucking pissed and for good reason. It's called a felony what they did, and with full-participation of the D.A. and the judge.

Ten years ago this would not have happened. we know because we have spoken our mind to arresting cunts before, as well as spoken like a gentleman to those treating us with the same consideration who represented the local constabulary.

All cops are or will be felons during the course for their tenure as a "peace officer', in the United States.

Now we must jump though many, many hoops to fulfill probation obligations, pay money we don't have, and if I make it through, will be able to have the case sealed, so that we might work again in this state without having a felony (never before) on our permanent record.

So this is Canada?? Your time is coming as well, just look at the show-out when the damn G-20 came to Canada a few years back.

They're gearing-up for chaos folks-
(collective object-pronoun used to avoid incrimination) If you are interested, we'll tell you why in a P.M. It's kind of hard not to be incensed while being kicked while prone.

Been bullied by cunts just like this on the sift before and those petty cowards are afraid to even show their asses here any longer.

I could have left race out lawdeelaws, but it wouldn't have made my point as well concerning the nature of the private enterprise (legal system, law enforcement) used to increase that enterprise's scope and control over the people rather than the equitable and righteous treatment of the same. Fuck a traffic ticket, and thanks for the one the nice guy that hands em to me, and goddamn the bulk of 'em who, as I've stated before on threads having to do with brutality, cops-gone-wild, etc., CAN NOT HELP being corrupted by a broken, corrupt, out-of-control system of law in the United States. If you are a cop in the realm of the now well-intent be-damned, you will eventually compromise societal morality and humanity towards fellow man, period.

SO yeah, forget what I mentioned about the man's melanin levels, he's a point of light in pile of dogshit.

Please forgive my incivility, a recent encounter with blue has me quite stirred.... @lawdeelaws, didn't you mention somewhere before that you were a member or former member of a fraternal order of law-sorts?

First off, being divisive is not the same thing as being uncivil. I'm taking this as you're surrendering the argument that Obama is rude and uncivil for a political leader, which is pure utter horsecrap. I have plenty of complaints about Obama; his alleged incivility as a political leader is utterly laughable. I don't see him going around telling people that if they don't agree with him, they're unpatriotic, not "real Americans", communists, fascists, socialists, and other nonsense. He doesn't scream "YOU LIE!" in the middle of other politicians' nationally televised speeches. Your entire suggestion that he's uncivil is partisan hackery. There's PLENTY I would criticize Obama for, but being uncivil?! Give me a break.

I'm not really arguing in the first place, heropsycho. The fact that you feel you need to passionately defend president Obama, even against the benign implication that he is impolite (the video I provided has many valid examples of this(I bet you didn't watch it)) is proof of the cloud of divisiveness that permeates his presidency.

More extreme left Democrats don't like him so much, so that makes Obama divisive?! Newsflash - they don't care for him so much because he's governed as a moderate. You know, the type of politics most people in this country agree with when asked without being mislead by the media. His signature legislation, Obamacare, broadened Medicaid rolls by a few million people, while limiting tax deductible benefits related to health care that wealthier income people benefit from the most, such as Cadillac health plans and capping FSA yearly contributions. It was the most moderate health reform being discussed. Put it up against single payer or government option, and it is remarkably moderate. Extreme left Democrats didn't like it? COLOR ME SHOCKED!

If Obama is moderate, why are all of his appointees extreme left? The far left should be pleased with his presidency, but the portrait they are painting is of a disinterested narcissist who couldn't lead a dog on a leash. Everyone drank the Obama kool-aid in 2008; they even controlled congress for two years. They should be celebrating Obama, yet there is a definite schism.

You want to know why politics is more divisive today than ever? We are now in a political climate where Obama is being criticized for taking out Bin Laden by political opponents. "Spiking the football"?! Has there ever been a more politically shallow move than that? "Man... he really has us by the political balls on this one, how on earth can we spin it? EVERYONE wanted Bin Laden dead, and we couldn't do it for almost a decade of trying, and now his administration got him... I KNOW! Let's accuse him of taking too much credit and excessive celebration!!!" Talk about manufacturing a conflict!

Do you know where the spiking the football quote came from? President Obama. He used the anniversary of bin ladens death to score some cheap political points against Romney, and so he opened himself to the criticism. If he had handled it presidentially, as a strong leader instead of using it as a partisan political play, Romney would have had to eat crow that whole week.

And please, the birther thing is ridiculous. Just stop. It was idiotic before he released his birth certificate, and after he released it, it's taken absurdity to a whole new level. It makes his opposition look even more brain dead the more they talk about it. Extreme conservatives simply wanted to latch on to anything that could disqualify him from office because he's not a Republican. Where were these people when there was talks about Kissinger making a good President?

So explain why the two examples I gave you wouldn't cause a reasonable person, let alone a paranoid one, to be skeptical?

And stop playing your religious card. If you'll accept whoever God appoints as President, then drink a tall glass of STFU, and stay out of politics. Where's your outrage for the GOP not making it a priority to protect the poor? That's certainly not very Christian either.

I'm not playing a card, I'm telling you what I believe. Last time I checked, I didn't need your permission to do that. Neither am I much into politics, personally. I follow it, but generally the choices are "bad" and "worse". I don't think the republicans are any better than the democrats, in many ways. The fact is, this nation has fallen far away from God, farther every day, and so I expect judgment will be coming fairly soon. Prophetically, 9-11 was a warning:

http://www.amazon.com/The-Isaiah-Judgment-Foretells-Americas/dp/1936488191

Sorry for the rant, but when are we going to talk about things Obama ACTUALLY hasn't done well with as President?

No problem. When you can think of any besides Bin Laden, let me know. I don't consider Obamacare to be a plus; my mother is going to lose her current health coverage and end up paying much higher premiums because of it.

>> ^heropsycho:

First off, being divisive is not the same thing as being uncivil. I'm taking this as you're surrendering the argument that Obama is rude and uncivil for a political leader, which is pure utter horsecrap. I have plenty of complaints about Obama; his alleged incivility as a political leader is utterly laughable. I don't see him going around telling people that if they don't agree with him, they're unpatriotic, not "real Americans", communists, fascists, socialists, and other nonsense. He doesn't scream "YOU LIE!" in the middle of other politicians' nationally televised speeches. Your entire suggestion that he's uncivil is partisan hackery. There's PLENTY I would criticize Obama for, but being uncivil?! Give me a break.

More extreme left Democrats don't like him so much, so that makes Obama divisive?! Newsflash - they don't care for him so much because he's governed as a moderate. You know, the type of politics most people in this country agree with when asked without being mislead by the media. His signature legislation, Obamacare, broadened Medicaid rolls by a few million people, while limiting tax deductible benefits related to health care that wealthier income people benefit from the most, such as Cadillac health plans and capping FSA yearly contributions. It was the most moderate health reform being discussed. Put it up against single payer or government option, and it is remarkably moderate. Extreme left Democrats didn't like it? COLOR ME SHOCKED!

You want to know why politics is more divisive today than ever? We are now in a political climate where Obama is being criticized for taking out Bin Laden by political opponents. "Spiking the football"?! Has there ever been a more politically shallow move than that? "Man... he really has us by the political balls on this one, how on earth can we spin it? EVERYONE wanted Bin Laden dead, and we couldn't do it for almost a decade of trying, and now his administration got him... I KNOW! Let's accuse him of taking too much credit and excessive celebration!!!" Talk about manufacturing a conflict!

And please, the birther thing is ridiculous. Just stop. It was idiotic before he released his birth certificate, and after he released it, it's taken absurdity to a whole new level. It makes his opposition look even more brain dead the more they talk about it. Extreme conservatives simply wanted to latch on to anything that could disqualify him from office because he's not a Republican. Where were these people when there was talks about Kissinger making a good President?

And stop playing your religious card. If you'll accept whoever God appoints as President, then drink a tall glass of STFU, and stay out of politics. Where's your outrage for the GOP not making it a priority to protect the poor? That's certainly not very Christian either.

Sorry for the rant, but when are we going to talk about things Obama ACTUALLY hasn't done well with as President?

>> ^shinyblurry:

>> ^heropsycho:
SERIOUSLY?!
Obama needs to be more polite?!
OBAMA ?!?!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qgce06Yw2ro
Not to mention a significant faction of the GOP accuse him of not being an American citizen. And that's persisting after he provided his birth certificate!
I'm not a leftwinger, or a Democrat for that matter, but you have to be out of your damn mind if you think that politics isn't civil enough because of Obama.
>> ^shinyblurry:
I'd like him to be more polite



Obama is the most divisive president this country has ever seen. Even top democrats complain that he is a terrible leader:
http://www.mrctv.org/videos/top-congressional-democrats-compl
ain-obama-not-leader
As far as where he was born is concerned, it's not as if the birthers have no reason to be skeptical:
http://ww
w.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/05/17/The-Vetting-Barack-Obama-Literary-Agent-1991-Born-in-Kenya-Raised-Indonesia-Hawaii

As for me, I accept whomever God has appointed. I pray for Obama, although I hope this will be his only term.

>> ^quantumushroom:

There is no need for incivility. It's fair to call a national figure a dumbass--being in the spotlight invites criticism--but not other sifters. kofi is not out of line. If your facts hold water you don't need the insults.

>> ^BansheeX:
>> ^longde:
Ron Paul is a filthy fucking statist. Below are some of his relevant 2009 budget requests (still looking for his 2010 and 2011 earmark requests):

Subcommittee on Homeland Security:
• $8.8 million for FEMA for drainage at Cove Harbor in Aransas County
• $2.2 million for FEMA to reconfigure and stabilize Capano Causeway Pier
• $500,000 for FEMA for Aransas County drainage master plan
• $35 million for FEMA for drainage in Friendswood
• $10 million for FEMA for drainage project for Friendswood/Clear Creek
• $10 million for FEMA for drainage project for Friendswood/Clear Creek
• $5 million for FEMA to recycle household hazardous waste in Friendswood

You're a dumbass. RP has always voted against the appropriation. Earmarks are 1% of the budget...



WHAT?! Since when can't I call other sifters Dumbasses? Fuck them...everyone on here is a bastard and I hate them...AHHHH FUCK!

There is no need for incivility. It's fair to call a national figure a dumbass--being in the spotlight invites criticism--but not other sifters. kofi is not out of line. If your facts hold water you don't need the insults.


>> ^BansheeX:

>> ^longde:
Ron Paul is a filthy fucking statist. Below are some of his relevant 2009 budget requests (still looking for his 2010 and 2011 earmark requests):

Subcommittee on Homeland Security:
• $8.8 million for FEMA for drainage at Cove Harbor in Aransas County
• $2.2 million for FEMA to reconfigure and stabilize Capano Causeway Pier
• $500,000 for FEMA for Aransas County drainage master plan
• $35 million for FEMA for drainage in Friendswood
• $10 million for FEMA for drainage project for Friendswood/Clear Creek
• $10 million for FEMA for drainage project for Friendswood/Clear Creek
• $5 million for FEMA to recycle household hazardous waste in Friendswood

You're a dumbass. RP has always voted against the appropriation. Earmarks are 1% of the budget...

>> ^blankfist:

For the record, pig fucker is @NetRunner's word for me. Not typically mine for him. I forgot where it started, but there it is.

Behold, the origin of pigfucker becoming my pet name for you:

http://videosift.com/video/Capitalism-Hits-The-Fan?loadcomm=1#comment-654408

It is true that it's more my pet name for you than your name for me. But I think it's only fair you get to use it on me in jest as well.

>> ^blankfist:

@dystopianfuturetoday & @NetRunner, you don't "hurt" my feelings. Oh geez. What did I start? I meant I can see instances of bullying during a debate when people start attacking me and not my argument is all. It doesn't hurt my feelings. I'm a big boy. All is fine in the world. I've made plenty of ad hominem attacks myself.
I don't mind them for the most part, honestly. I just have to point it out because I feel like there's some hypocrisy here when I hear some of you crying foul: "No name calling", "Be civil", "I'm being trolled", "All these PMs are harassment", etc.
Can we stop trying to make mountains out of these molehill occurrences of incivility? I don't see a lot of people on here doing too much to warrant perma bans or even reactionary week bans. I think some of us need to toughen up a bit.


My goal here in saying "we need to write down the rules" is that I'm hoping most people will look at them, find them reasonable, and choose to live within them.

I know you can take it, as well as dish it out. I'm in the same boat, but I don't think "toughen up" should be the right response. This isn't supposed to be like prison (or high school). Sometimes I'd like to have a conversation with people without constantly having to fend off personal attacks. You know, some civility.

I don't really see why you want to fight for the status quo. Right now we have neither civility nor a lack of bans.

I say we try writing down the rule you yourself suggested, pointing people to it, and trying it out as a way to get people to regulate themselves. That should give people some clear idea of what is and isn't okay beyond "don't say pigfucker in front of dag."

@dystopianfuturetoday & @NetRunner, you don't "hurt" my feelings. Oh geez. What did I start? I meant I can see instances of bullying during a debate when people start attacking me and not my argument is all. It doesn't hurt my feelings. I'm a big boy. All is fine in the world. I've made plenty of ad hominem attacks myself.

I don't mind them for the most part, honestly. I just have to point it out because I feel like there's some hypocrisy here when I hear some of you crying foul: "No name calling", "Be civil", "I'm being trolled", "All these PMs are harassment", etc.

Can we stop trying to make mountains out of these molehill occurrences of incivility? I don't see a lot of people on here doing too much to warrant perma bans or even reactionary week bans. I think some of us need to toughen up a bit.

>> ^NetRunner:

...and yet if I read your comments correctly, I don't think you were exactly pleased with the process he went through before banning you.

I do have a problem with how dag chose to handle the bans. He handled them poorly, IMO. But the alternative would be worse. And this is a website, not city council. The decisions dag make don't affect me in the slightest outside of this website.

People voting to take away the privileges of others is doomed to be abused. Not by the trolls, but by the status quo. That means the majority of people who have similar perspectives on what is and what is not acceptable behavior will determine who is and who is not banned.

>> ^NetRunner:

I think it's all about the kind of atmosphere we want in the community. I think there's been a slide towards greater and greater hostility and incivility. That seems to be the gist of dag's original post, all the way at the top of the page, no?
I don't really want to see some reign of terror where we purge the roles of the sift, but I would like to see people getting time outs for lashing out at people.
As for democratic process, I'm just asking for a code of laws. It seems to me that you can't have "due process" until you write down what the laws are. Without that, it's always going to boil down to the king settling disputes directly.


I don't think people are being so incivil we need to come up with some new busybody central planning tools to handle it. We've got hobbling for the members to use in case someone is being awfully incivil. And I think that'll always be up for determining case-by-case.

Writing it down as law makes it so everyone has to follow the same rule. You call me a pig fucker sometimes, and that's more than cool because we have a relationship that's suited for that kind of banter. But if I called BB2 that same name, she'd probably want dag to do something about it. In fact, I'm sure she would.

I think it really needs to not be a law what can be and cannot be said. We should give people the benefit of the doubt until they lose their privilege to do so by "careful" consideration by one of the admin. That way people who call each other douchebags or pig fuckers can continue to do so, and people will feel comfortable that their speech isn't being policed by a bunch of hall monitors.

>> ^NetRunner:

Sounds good, but what constitutes an attack?
If I say I've fucking had it with you calling me a Nazi all the time, and hobble you for it, how exactly do we settle whether I've got a legitimate case or not? Make dag threaten to cut the baby in half?


It works how things work in every day situations. In sexual harassment training they tell you to tell the offender that what he or she is saying offends you. After that, if they persist, then you have a grievance. Same thing would apply here, no?

Hypothetically, I call you a Nazi, you should then tell me you think that's harassment. If I persist, then you could bring your grievance to an admin, showing that you warned me. I mean, this isn't complicated stuff. It's just basic communication.

I just don't want to see this place become so fucking tedious. It's a better site when it works more like a squabbling family than a clockwork draconian utopia.

>> ^blankfist:

@NetRunner, see, for me it's not about dag's competence as a king or leader. He's the site owner, so I think by default he needs to take an avid and responsible role in the way punishment is doled out.

...and yet if I read your comments correctly, I don't think you were exactly pleased with the process he went through before banning you.

As a libertarian, sure, you are deeply committed to the idea that dag is and must be considered our king because he's got the divine right of property, and the rest of us are merely his subjects who only are allowed here at his consent.

But that's different from whether you like what the king's doing at any given time.
>> ^blankfist:
We don't have a pressing epidemic of "name callers" on here that we must deputize the community to help dag sift through the Sift Raft™. Banning probies and spammers is one thing, but banning actual contributing members shouldn't be a democratic process. It'll just lead to favoritism.

I think it's all about the kind of atmosphere we want in the community. I think there's been a slide towards greater and greater hostility and incivility. That seems to be the gist of dag's original post, all the way at the top of the page, no?

I don't really want to see some reign of terror where we purge the roles of the sift, but I would like to see people getting time outs for lashing out at people.

As for democratic process, I'm just asking for a code of laws. It seems to me that you can't have "due process" until you write down what the laws are. Without that, it's always going to boil down to the king settling disputes directly.
>> ^blankfist:
I propose we use hobbling when someone seems to be on the attack. As soon as an admin gets on they can look into the situation and listen to BOTH sides. I'm sure by that point the community will know all about the offense and already be weighing in and doing amateur sleuthing to get the facts. After that temp bans and perm bans would follow.

Sounds good, but what constitutes an attack?

If I say I've fucking had it with you calling me a Nazi all the time, and hobble you for it, how exactly do we settle whether I've got a legitimate case or not? Make dag threaten to cut the baby in half?

If the following comment doesn't convince you that this is choggie:

In reply to this comment by Romero:
This, "It's only the internet" shit would apparently from the accounts from female(s) who have met this, what appears to be, developmentally disabled child gwiz665 in person does not seem to apply here-I would tend to trust the in-person meeting over the online persona, if you could call it one.

I haven't been here active until recently,but i have been watching some of the more prolific users.

Gwiz665? You need some basic social decorum lessons alla Liza Doolittle-Doesn't appear given your geographical orientation and command of a conversation that you get out a whole lot. (Note the defensive posturing of the accused in light of hard evidence and/or disagreement of any kind with his position)-schoolyard shenanigans.

Qualm? He won't leave, and he won't become any more interesting nor will his overall raw, untrained incivility falter. Feel sorry for him but don't knock his ice cream cone in the sand for good measure-From the looks of his past with other users,he ain't gonna take any advice, good, bad, or otherwise.

Shut-in douchebag?? Too much attention as a child? Legend in his own mind?



Then maybe this comment will:

In reply to this comment by Romero:
Uuugggh! Aural and ocular abuse-WPTTHTBF < whitepeopletryingtoohardtobefunny

Check out this this search of "white people trying too hard to be funny"




Banned.

If anyone has a problem with this, take it up with @dag or @lucky760. Maybe they'll give a fuck, but I don't.

And don't worry, choggie. I'll ban the rest of your sockpuppets when I feel like it.