"Oh wait that's right, you wanted the Russian investigation started based on..."

...based on the fact the US was surveilling Russians, and members of Team Trump kept showing up.

Why were there over 100 contacts between Team Trump and the Russians, and why did Trump tell us there were none?

"It proves that the Biden family was taking massive payments from our foreign adversaries for nothing but access to our foreign policy."

No, it doesn't prove anything like that.

"Meanwhile you wanted Trump investigated because you said Putin had a tape of Trump telling a hooker to pee on a bed that Obama had slept on."

You'd better retire that lame talking point: The Russia investigation PREDATED the Steele Dossier. That means IT HAD ALREADY STARTED when the Steele Dossier surfaced.

Whoever told you the Russia investigation was based on the Steele Dossier has been lying to you. And they're either too stupid to know the truth, or they think YOU'RE too stupid to know the difference.

"Ok, so over 20 LLCs to launder money."

You have no proof of that.

"Btw, what did these LLCs actually do to get these payments?"

I'm guessing something legal.

Your turn: what proof do you have of ANYTHING illegal? If creating LLCs and receiving money is illegal, you could be indicting Trump and his kids.

"Over 50 LLCs"

That's not what Comer claimed. "Over 20" was the exact wording.

"Over 50 LLCs, payments went to Grandchildren"

Those could be to 529 plans. And how many different grandchildren, over how long? Ten grandchildren, over five years? That's fifty transactions.

"you can still keep your head in the sand and say "nothing to see here.""

I'm all for getting to the bottom of it. Oh, wait...Trump's DOJ under Bill Barr already investigated this, and found nothing untoward.

This is all about Recounting Arizona until Trump wins.

And since you skipped my direct question, I'll ask again, directly: Tell us: in your mind, what does that prove?

"Third party is WAY better than what Democrats are offering."

Democrats are offering to beat Trump.

Third-Party isn't making that offer.

"Dems are fascist as hell."

It's only Republicans suggesting taking the voters out of the elections.

As usual, Bellringer uses DARVO, just like Roy Cohn taught DJT.

"And another Mueller investigation. I would assume the Dems can create some more false evidence to start another investigation."

(Sigh)
Yet another Republican who didn't read The Rubio Report.

Why does every Republican keep himself ignorant of what Republicans admitted?!?

"Bank records show plenty of proof."

No they don't. They're mostly required run-of-the-mill notices of transactions equalling $10,000 or more. IOW, if that's proof of guilt, the Trump Klan is in a lot more trouble.

But tell us: in your mind, what does that prove?

And Justice Thomas, do you believe allowing your mother to live rent-free, and sending the boy you're raising as your son to private school aren't gifts meant indirectly for you?

I'd like to ask Thomas which idiots he asked for legal advice who told him gifts worth over twice his annual salary didn't exceed the $415 reporting threshold, and why he didn't ask the folks whose job it is to advise on judicial ethics.

"Isn't this what every Biden Backer wants? They go around complaining "republicans" shouldn't hire them"

No, they go around saying the hirers should be treated as the root of the problem. And pointing out they are, by and large, Republican Sheriffs protecting Republican members of the Chambers of. Commerce who just happen to be the largest contributors to the Sheriffs' re-election campaigns.

"Is this an actual book ban? Nope. It's called curating."

If the curator isn't the one making the curating decisions, it's a ban.

" the trust issue is due to NATO constantly infringing on Russia's sphere of influence "

What a crock of schittt.

"The workers went on strike, as they voted to."

And Tres left out the salient part, as he is wont to.

"The workers went on strike, as they voted to."

And that allowed them to destroy the hirers' property, because....?

"Take a few moment to read the actual judgement and dissent. You may find it enlightening, I sure did. I think most of us can all agree that it is morally wrong to deliberately damage property that belongs to another, but The Supreme Court isn't supposed to decide cases based on simple right vs wrong. They are supposed to decide a case based an a well reasoned interpretation of existing law (to include the Constitution) with consideration of precedent in the form of case law."

I read the opinion. Again, it's not a blow against labor, it's a reinforcement that a labor dispute does NOT suddenly make destroying others' property legal.

If you can find case law allowing destruction of someone else's property if you're involved in a labor dispute with them, post it.

It's fine for the company though.
#14 | POSTED BY DANFORTH

"Fixed again."

No, misrepresented again. Can't you tell the difference?

And why do you have to put new words in MY mouth to make YOUR point?

"The only people who have anything at stake is the serfs"

The workers purposely destroyed the owners property during a labor despite. They should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

"No one can go on strike. Ever again. "

I NEVER said that. In fact, I voted this week to allow a strike authorization for SAG-AFTRA.

Pickets are fine, protesting is fine, changing hearts and minds is ideal; violence or vandalism IS NOT ALLOWABLE.

This is NOT a blow against labor. This is a statement that "being upset" doesn't allow destruction of someone else's property.

I'm all for union strikers to be reminded picketing is just fine; destruction is NOT AN OPTION.

I wish the result was 9-0.

"The rich draw SS just like the rest of us"

No, they don't.

There is a cap on both taxed amounts, and payout. Lift the cap without lifting the payout commensurately, and you turn SS into more of a welfare system.

For the minimum wage worker, SS replaces about 85% of income. Next level is about 50%, then at the cap it's around 35% of income replaced.

Also, a lot of recipients don't exceed the threshold of income to make SS taxable. Rich folks, otoh, will generally pay income taxes on SS immediately.

Bellringer upset by shameless lies?!?

I was wondering why my latest irony meter had exploded.

" In 2023, individual filers won't pay any capital gains tax if their total taxable income is $44,625 or less."

And that's TAXABLE income, so the income can be ~$13K more before incurring federal taxes based on the standard deduction.

" the police state's... state run media..."

What a moronic statement. You're suggesting the media changes 180 degrees, based on the most recent election.

Laughable on its face.