" I just not aware of what you are claiming."

Did y'all catch that?

It happened over 100 times, and Bellringer wasn't aware of ANY of them.

Isn't he the guy who promoted varying one's news sources?

His posts read like his "varied" sources are NRO, Redstate, and the Daily Stormer.

" You need more than just his statements"

ANOTHER poster with "varied" news sources, all of whom have NEVER aired anything but pro-Trump fluff.

" I meant to say I also read what gets posted at Realclearpolitics."

Yet none of your sources covered any of Trump's 100+ instances.

What does that say about your varied sources?

" NRO is very critical of Trump"

Yet they didn't touch any of the 100+ instances ... so ... not really.

#30
Those articles are stating obvious facts.

But wow ... one non-fluff a month!

And still: no mentions of the 100+ instances. Were they unaware as well, or were they aware and just hiding it from you?

" Biden' handlers took what was a local LE issue and put the FBI on it"

Terrorism is within the purview of the FBI, dumfuq.

Should we discuss what made those folks terrorists? How about we start with the definition of terrorism?

Mine is when someone makes violent or mortal threats toward elected officials, in an attempt to change policies or actions by intimidation or fear.

Every time a parent or guardian threatened a school board with violence or death if they didn't reverse course, by definition, that is terrorism.

Please post your definition. I need to see where we differ.

"I know some of them got loud. "

Oh, ffs. Loud?!?

You wouldn't think it was just "loud" if it was your family getting death threats.

Try using a little humanity for once. There's a REASON it's called terrorism.

" Now you're being obtuse."

Now you're pretending you weren't posting outliers.

What's your definition of terrorism, bellringer? I've already asked once.

" This is a 3 page document breaking down how domestic terrorism is defined and categorized"

Did you read the part where it almost used my same wording?

Turns out those parents weren't being loud. They were being terrorists. BY DEFINITION.

Time to call it what it is.

" They cover a wide range of issues. It's not 100% about Trump.

We'll add "outlier" to the list of words you don't understand.

" An article about the Minnesota fraud scandal is not a Trump puff piece."

You're right. It has nothing at all to do with Trump.

"We'll add Trump puff piece to the list"

Your list, since Trump has nothing to do with the story, until now, when he's withholding money for hungry children.

But the article didn't cover that part, did it?

It was also smack in the middle of page one.

So, is that YOUR definition?

" Seriously, ditch the shovel."

Hand it up to me, if it'll reach.

So those " loud parents" were terrorists, agreed?

" Plenty of parents got loud but did not issue threats. "

And if you can find one of those that the FBI labeled a terrorist, I'll agree with you. But you can't. And you won't.

So now you're deflecting to VOLUME. Nobody got labeled a terrorist for volume. You saw the requirements: threatening injury, violence, or death. All of the folks labeled terrorists did so.

Basically, at this point, your only defense is pretending that the FBI violated their own rules and were designating people terrorists willy-nilly.

It's patently untrue. How is that not a lie?

" Well first off it was a local law enforcement issue"

Not once the terroristic threats started.

" ... unless your argument is that each and every death threat issued anywhere in the country is investigated by the FBI."

That's stupid; of course not. It would have to be against a public official, and meant to have them reverse course or policy due to fear.

You know: terrorism, by definition.

" Biden administration loudly announced it was bringing in the FBI, IMO that was an attempt at intimidation"

You're joking, right?!?

You just defended the folks you admit were terrorists, and are pearl-clutching because Biden was too rough on them.

Careful you don't drown carrying all that fetid water.

" I don't accuse the FBI of violating its own rules."

In that case, the only people the FBI were calling terrorists, were terrorists.

Why do you have such a problem with that?

From the FBI's website:

The FBI is also responsible for specific terrorism-related offenses, such as violence at airports, money laundering, attacks on U.S. officials, and others.

(emphasis mine)

Now find my question: who told you there were no subsidies? And answer it.

" When it was being sold to the public before it passed is what I recall, although that was almost 16 years ago."

Well, nobody ever said it. It was never true. Subsidies were subsidies from day one. THAT WAS PART OF THE POINT, literally the first "A".

Clearly, your recall sucks.

Again, did you make this up? Or did you hear this from someone else? If someone else, who?