Why does the right insist

[Conager]

LOL, one video from a discredited source and you take it to be evidence of widespread protesters being paid?

The website that was posted by Rightguide? - FALSE

The craigslist ads being real? - FALSE

The fact that anyone believed that it was widespread is actually hysterical.

Cite?

 

[zipman]

Cite?

In the link I already provided in this thread.

 

[Queertag45]

He is just jealous and bitter because he is at the last stop of his less than lustrous career. Not many places are hiring the elderly with vintage University of Georgia computer science degrees.

Fortunately, he had a relative that presides over for an HOA brown shirt / Gestapo managment company that sends out notices and collects Homeowner Association assessments and monthly dues.

Keeps him busy re-inking teh dot-matrix printer ribbons, tearing off the tractor-feed edges, and stuffing envelopes twice a month with violation notices and HOA dues.

Cut him some slack; his bluster is simply covering his fear. The last time he got thrown out on his ear, he couldn't find anyone willing to hire him from Dec 2007 to Oct 2011. That had to be rough. Explains why he always leaps at any opportunity to gloat at other's misfortunes.

Still selling DVD kiosks?

 

[Conager]

Still selling DVD kiosks?

No, just the replacement feet for them. Know anyone that owns a Redbox and needs one?

 

[Conager]

In the link I already provided in this thread.

Do you have any links from sources that are not been repeatedly discredited?

 

[zipman]

Do you have any links from sources that are not been repeatedly discredited?

When was Snopes discredited?

LOL, I hope you're not referring to the Daily Mail "expose."

 

[Rightguide]

When was Snopes discredited?

LOL, I hope you're not referring to the Daily Mail "expose."

When it was discovered to be owned by two California liberals.

 

[KingOrfeo]

When it was discovered to be owned by two California liberals.

Snopes:

David Mikkelson, the creator of the site, has said that the site receives more complaints of liberal bias than conservative bias,[22] but insists that the same debunking standards are applied to all political urban legends. In 2012, FactCheck.org reviewed a sample of Snopes' responses to political rumors regarding George W. Bush, Sarah Palin, and Barack Obama, and found them to be free from bias in all cases. FactCheck noted that Barbara Mikkelson was a Canadian citizen (and thus unable to vote in US elections) and David Mikkelson was an independent who was once registered as a Republican. "You'd be hard-pressed to find two more apolitical people," David Mikkelson told them.[22][23] In 2012, The Florida Times-Union reported that About.com's urban legends researcher found a "consistent effort to provide even-handed analyses" and that Snopes' cited sources and numerous reputable analyses of its content confirm its accuracy.[24]

Critics of the site have falsely asserted that it is funded by George Soros.[2]

 

[Rightguide]

Snopes:

He and his wife own the site, and they are well known Califonia libs. They were defended by the left-wing About.com, which is owned by the NYTs.

 

[Rightguide]

Snopes:

Where's that cite I asked for on the alleged law that requires Trump to divest himself of his business interests?

 

[Wrong Element]

Anybody who honestly believes that thousands of people are being paid the equivalent of a fulltime job at twice the minimum wage just to protest Donald Trump should have a full mental workup immediately.

 

[KingOrfeo]

Where's that cite I asked for on the alleged law that requires Trump to divest himself of his business interests?

I never alleged it. There is no such law AFAIK (though there is the emoluments clause of the Constitution). But failing to do so is still an impeachable offense if Congress says it is, and quite an easy sell politically.

 

[KingOrfeo]

He and his wife own the site, and they are well known Califonia libs. They were defended by the left-wing About.com, which is owned by the NYTs.

And by FactCheck.org, which is just about the most credible source out there.

The (ex-)wife no longer has any ownership interest, BTW.

 

[Rightguide]

And by FactCheck.org, which is just about the most credible source out there.

The (ex-)wife no longer has any ownership interest, BTW.

That doesn't change the fact that it is not a reliable neutral site.

FactCheck.org is or was owned by the Annenberg Group who's only conservative was it's dead founder. But it does provide more detailed analysis than the others.

 

[KingOrfeo]

That doesn't change the fact that it is not a reliable neutral site.

Yes, it does.

FactCheck.org is or was owned by the Annenberg Group who's only conservative was it's dead founder.

That's not much on which to hang an allegation of bias . . . but it does provide an insight into RW thinking. Anything not clearly conservative is LW biased, that's your standard.

 

[Rightguide]

I never alleged it. There is no such law AFAIK (though there is the emoluments clause of the Constitution). But failing to do so is still an impeachable offense if Congress says it is, and quite an easy sell politically.

BTW, when Hillary was receiving millions while in office for her foundation was that a violation of the Emoluments Clause?

The Emoluments Clause has never been litigated or reviewed by the SCOTUS in our history. So, good luck pushing that BS.

 

[Rightguide]

Yes, it does.



That's not much on which to hang an allegation of bias . . . but it does provide an insight into RW thinking. Anything not clearly conservative is LW biased, that's your standard.

Liberals only care about those who back up their bullshit, all else is without merit.

 

[KingOrfeo]

BTW, when Hillary was receiving millions while in office for her foundation was that a violation of the Emoluments Clause?

Not to my knowledge. I never heard of any RW saying so at the time.

The Emoluments Clause has never been litigated or reviewed by the SCOTUS in our history.

So what?

 

[Rightguide]

Not to my knowledge. I never heard of any RW saying so at the time.



So what?

So it's highly unlikely Democrats will be able to pin that on Trump in view of 200 plus years of history to the contrary.

 

[KingOrfeo]

So it's highly unlikely Democrats will be able to pin that on Trump in view of 200 plus years of history to the contrary.

You mean, the Republicans. No impeachment happens unless they want it.

The absence of previous litigation of the emoluments clause means nothing more than that no precedent exists saying they can't.

Especially since they can do so without litigation. The Constitution leaves the impeachment process entirely to Congress; it is intended as a political rather than a legal process, and there is no provision for judicial review. If Congress decides this is impeachable, no court can tell them otherwise. Remember, no personal civil rights of Donald Trump are at stake here, only whether he gets to go on being POTUS. An impeachment is not a criminal prosecution, and no right of due process of law attaches.

 

[Queertag45]

No, just the replacement feet for them. Know anyone that owns a Redbox and needs one?

If I ever hear of someone looking for replacement feet, I will forward them to you. Should they go directly to your Winnebago or leave a message at the post office?

 

[NOIRTRASH]

Anybody who honestly believes that thousands of people are being paid the equivalent of a fulltime job at twice the minimum wage just to protest Donald Trump should have a full mental workup immediately.

If youre right something will come of it, but you just lost the election, they wouldn't come out to vote they wont come out to bleed and die.

 

[Conager]

Anybody who honestly believes that thousands of people are being paid the equivalent of a fulltime job at twice the minimum wage just to protest Donald Trump should have a full mental workup immediately.

Why would you need "thousands" of agitaters? With years of indoctrination by the educational industrial complex and just a little nudge on social media it doesn't take much to get out the useful idiots.

All you have to do is tell them to come out and that they will "make a difference." They don't even have to know what it is their objecting to.

Thanks to the Obama economy there is an awful lot of leftist indoctrinated college grads with no jobs and a lot of time on their hands. By now they should be half a decade into their careers and finding out that they really ought to be Republicans.

All you need is perhaps some organized transportation and those nifty pre-printed signs that pop up at completely spontaneous protests. Most liberals live in big cities with convenient public transportation.

 

[Conager]

If I ever hear of someone looking for replacement feet, I will forward them to you. Should they go directly to your Winnebago or leave a message at the post office?

Just have them send a note: General Delivery, Paradise Valley Arizona 85253

 

[KingOrfeo]

Why would you need "thousands" of agitaters? With years of indoctrination by the educational industrial complex and just a little nudge on social media it doesn't take much to get out the useful idiots.

All you have to do is tell them to come out and that they will "make a difference."

And if the party hires and pays people to make those calls, there is nothing illegal or improper about that at all.

But, once again, the "paid protesters" meme implies that the protesters would not be marching if they were not paid, i.e., that they are not sincere opponents of the Trump Admin, and that's bullshit.