Trump revealed highly classified information to Russian foreign minister and ambassador - Polidicks

[QUOTE=theyear3535;52234036]So all new members are alts?[/QUOTE] He's not implying all new members are alts, he's implying you're an alt. There's a big difference. Stop evading. [I]Edited:[/I] Nevermind.

[QUOTE=theyear3535;52233972]Trump accepted bribes from Russia? Source? [highlight](User was banned for this post ("Didn't read the article and thread" - Kiwi))[/highlight][/QUOTE] [QUOTE=theyear3536;52227308]Nothing will happen. In fact I am so sure nothing will happen that if Trump is impeached before 2020 I will film myself shooting my ipad. Toxx. [/quote] this guy is really funny

This administrations constant flagrant disregard for the law and ethics should have reached the breaking point long ago but hopefully this does the trick.

[QUOTE=theyear3535;52234036]So all new members are alts?[/QUOTE] life comes at you fast

[QUOTE=TheFilmSlacker;52234108]We aren't even 150 days in yet.[/QUOTE] Hopefully he gets impeached for [I]something[/I] by Day 150. [I]Jesus...[/I]

May as well join in on the toxx train. If Trump is impeached, I'll read 50-100 of Donald's tweets out loud I'll let the mods choose the tweets if they really give that much of a shit :toxx: [QUOTE=Judas;52234291]Im pretty sure the House could file for impeachment today and he would still be in office by July, these things take a lot of time[/QUOTE] guess i'll just leave it at if hes impeached at all [highlight](User was banned for this post ("Toxx: If Trump is impeached, must read 50-100 of his tweets out loud." - Sgt Doom))[/highlight]

[QUOTE=Shaohs;52234251]May as well join in on the toxx train. If Trump is impeached before the end of July, I'll read 50-100 of Donald's tweets out loud I'll let the mods choose the tweets if they really give that much of a shit :toxx:[/QUOTE] Im pretty sure the House could file for impeachment today and he would still be in office by July, these things take a lot of time

[QUOTE=elitehakor;52233951]the information was not his to disseminate[/QUOTE] [I]Legally[/I] it was, since the presitent afaik can declassify absolutely anything whenever they please. Of course that doesn't change much regarding it being a [B]monumentally[/B] stupid idea. How does impeachment work in the US? Do enough lawmakers agree to oust him and that's it?

[QUOTE=Ager O'Eggers;52232597]Someone swap his nuke launch keys for one of these, before he just hands them over to Putin. [t]https://www.realstrengthmatters.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/81sbhf-b9rl._sl1500_.jpg[/t][/QUOTE] My son is 15 months old, I'll see if he's willing to hook up the president with these.

[QUOTE=Tamschi;52234315] How does impeachment work in the US? Do enough lawmakers agree to oust him and that's it?[/QUOTE] With the GOP? It doesn't. Unless you're a democrat. IIRC, to impeach a president, both the House and the Senate need to find him guilty of a high crime by a 2/3 majority.

Impeachment is, in simple terms, only passing indictments against the President, and is done with a simple majority of the House. Congress may impeach the President for [URL="http://www.crf-usa.org/impeachment/high-crimes-and-misdemeanors.html"]high crimes and misdemeanors[/URL], and that is a very specific piece of legal terminology that appears deceptive. In effect, the President can be kicked out for abusing his office, as well as for malfeasance committed before being elected; there is no explicit limitation on the timeframe they're allowed to consider. After articles of impeachment have been passed by the house, it is then up to the Senate to hold a trial and try to convict the President of some or all of the charges in the impeachment. This requires a [I]two-thirds[/I] majority vote to pass, and at that point the President can be removed from office. Bill Clinton was impeached but a two-thirds majority vote could not be reached and so he stayed in office until the ordinary end of his term - in effect, the House determined that the President lied under oath, and the Senate decided not to fire him over it.

[QUOTE=Tamschi;52234315][I]Legally[/I] it was, since the presitent afaik can declassify absolutely anything whenever they please. [/QUOTE] the information was not US-sourced, it was from a US partner under an agreement that it would not be disclosed to anyone else outside of certain parts of the US government i don't know about legality, but the president did not have any authority to release it outside of the agreed parties.

Has nesto toxxed yet or nahh Not gonna ask him to so that this doesn't turn into a massive "yeah nesto should toxx thread" but he seems pretty sure

Hahahahahahah...hehehehe....hahahahahahahaha I can't wait for the mental gymnastics to begin! I am crying :smile: lmao

Wasn't this exactly what some intelligence officials weree worried about prior to presidency?

So, more "unnamed sources" and allegations with no evidence backing it? What's new?

[QUOTE=MrRalgoman;52234442]So, more "unnamed sources" and allegations with no evidence backing it? What's new?[/QUOTE] Watergate also used anonymous sources, and Trump has shown tendencies to go after people who publicly cross him as POTUS.

[QUOTE=Firetornado;52234380]Hahahahahahah...hehehehe....hahahahahahahaha I can't wait for the mental gymnastics to begin! I am crying :smile: lmao[/QUOTE] Didn't take too long, even after that stuff with nesto [QUOTE=MrRalgoman;52234442]So, more "unnamed sources" and allegations with no evidence backing it? What's new?[/QUOTE] In any case there needs to be an investigation, and if there's not it shows how corrupt this country really is.

When you know that your ideals, and the man you've chosen to spearhead their implementation, are so grotesque that you believe the entire news media of the western world would collude to stop it.

[QUOTE=MrRalgoman;52234442]So, more "unnamed sources" and allegations with no evidence backing it? What's new?[/QUOTE] Because Reuters has such a long history of fabricating news using unconfirmed sources to score cheap political points, and totally isn't regarded as one of the most credible and objective journalistic entities in the world. Do tell more, Mister Ralgo [I]"why was I banned for posting Breitbart and Infowars articles?"[/I] Man.

[QUOTE=CG-105;52234457]When you know that your ideals, and the man you've chosen to spearhead their implementation, are so grotesque that you believe the entire news media of the western world would collude to stop it.[/QUOTE] I wonder if these same people would hold allegations of Hillary's email scandal to the same degree. [I]We never saw what Hillary's 30,000 emails were, right? Who cares how bad it looks, we can't know if the contents are truly classified or not because we didn't see the emails. Besides, the media is biased anyways.[/I]

[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;52233753]I would literally cut off my finger if somebody at the White House weren't physically restraining Trump from accessing Twitter right now.[/QUOTE] :toxx:

[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;52234474]Do tell more, Mister Ralgo [I]"why was I banned for posting Breitbart and Infowars articles?"[/I] Man.[/QUOTE] I've never used either of those sources, in fact I have denounced breitbart myself in our pms.. Can we keep it professional here? Do you really need to stoop down to mockery? Reuters was just echoing the bullshit WaPo was spouting, they didn't break the story.

[QUOTE=MrRalgoman;52234491]I've never used either of those sources. Can we keep it professional here? Do you really need to stoop down to mockery?[/QUOTE] Sorry, you're right. Let me make a quick correction: Mister Ralgo [I]"why are you restricting my internet pal's free speech by not letting him post Breitbart and Infowar articles, and also WOAH WHY DID YOU JUST BAN ME FOR POSTING THE DAILY WIRE IMMEDIATELY AFTER TELLING ME NOT TO POST TABLOID PROPAGANDA SHIT? I'm going to write essay long private messages to the other mods to complain about you trying to silence me politically, and you're going to get fired, just you wait and see!"[/I] Man. [editline]16th May 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=MrRalgoman;52234491]Reuters was just evhoing the bullshit WaPo wasn't spouting, they didn't break the story.[/QUOTE] Reuters confirmed the story through their own independent sources. Washington Post may have broken the news, but it's now been confirmed and cross checked by multiple journalistic entities, including Reuters. You can't write it off just because the original article was from Washington Post (another highly regarded media entity with a firm commitment to verifying sources) :toot:

Is "unverified sources huehue" going to become the new "I don't understand how polling and percentages work." because if so can we please start banning for that sooner rather than later? I am most certainly not calling anyone out and trying to backseat moderate but this became a genuine problem before. Educating people on information they don't understand is 100% awesome, trying to educate people who don't give a shit and will continually drive-by shitpost the same phrase regardless of you repeatedly telling them what it actually means gets old after right about now. That same poll argument coming from the same like 5 people shit up about 10 threads for like a month even though people would tell them how polls work every time, they would still do it again anyway, EVERY. TIME. We don't need that again.

[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;52234495]Sorry, you're right. Let me make a quick correction: Mister Ralgo [I]"why are you restricting my internet pal's free speech by not letting him post Breitbart and Infowar articles, and also WOAH WHY DID YOU JUST BAN ME FOR POSTING THE DAILY WIRE IMMEDIATELY AFTER TELLING ME NOT TO POST TABLOID PROPAGANDA SHIT? I'm going to write essay long private messages to the other mods to complain about you trying to silence me politically, and you're going to get fired, just you wait and see!"[/I] Man. [editline]16th May 2017[/editline] Reuters confirmed the story through their own independent sources. Washington Post may have broke the news, but it's now been confirmed and cross checked by multiple journalistic entities, including Reuters.:toot:[/QUOTE] Man, isn't this supposed to be a political discussion forum? Not some let's all be massive dicks to anyone with an opposing view point forum?

[QUOTE=MrRalgoman;52234504]Man, isn't this supposed to be a political discussion forum? Not some let's all be massive dicks to anyone with an opposing view point forum?[/QUOTE] TL;DR your reputation casts doubts over your arguments. Either you open your argument with something more solid than a mocking statement, or you accept people not taking anything you say seriously

[QUOTE=Xion21;52234503]Is "unverified sources huehue" going to become the new "I don't understand how polling and percentages work." because if so can we please start banning for that sooner rather than later? I am most certainly not calling anyone out and trying to backseat moderate but this became a genuine problem before. Educating people on information they don't understand is 100% awesome, trying to educate people who don't give a shit and will continually drive-by shitpost the same phrase regardless of you repeatedly telling them what it actually means gets old after right about now. That same poll argument coming from the same like 5 people shit up about 10 threads for like a month even though people would tell them how polls work every time, they would still do it again anyway, EVERY. TIME. We don't need that again.[/QUOTE] Unnamed Sources are the new "[I]Get Out of Reason Free[/I]" card for the "Fake News" crowd. Like, no shit the sources are unnamed. They are leaking intel about the inner workings of the Trump administration. Getting fired is the least of their concerns: Trump has promised to punish anybody caught informing on his regime to "the fullest extent of the law."

[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;52234495]Sorry, you're right. Let me make a quick correction: Mister Ralgo [I]"why are you restricting my internet pal's free speech by not letting him post Breitbart and Infowar articles, and also WOAH WHY DID YOU JUST BAN ME FOR POSTING THE DAILY WIRE IMMEDIATELY AFTER TELLING ME NOT TO POST TABLOID PROPAGANDA SHIT? I'm going to write essay long private messages to the other mods to complain about you trying to silence me politically, and you're going to get fired, just you wait and see!"[/I] Man.[/QUOTE] :sbhj:

[QUOTE=MrRalgoman;52234504]Man, isn't this supposed to be a political discussion forum? Not some let's all be massive dicks to anyone with an opposing view point forum?[/QUOTE] My point is that you have essentially no credibility to be calling sources into question given your preferred media diet. Breitbart, Daily Mail, Infowars, Fox News, and the Daily Wire are hardly paragons of journalistic integrity lol This has been confirmed by multiple entities, including one which is essentially the [I]de facto standard[/I] for honest, credible, unbiased, and well-sourced journalism. Your dismissal of this situation based on the initial story breaking through WaPo is absurd in light of that.