What Is 2019-2020 Reality Fake OR Fact

[otoc]

It seems tucker has decided to not clarify.

OK, let's look at your questions. And it's no easy task because of how you select words and jump off into new realms while taking leaps away from what I was actually responding to. I'm in constant need of reading my past words and context with you, so I have to insert them.

Your party has been crying "RUSSIA" for near 3 solid years and shows no sign of stopping.... "red baiting"...

And the KKK was Southern Democrats... so what.

It seems why I brought up McCarthy’s party affiliation should be obvious if you took the time to read my full post (including Tucker’s words) instead of cherry picking words, giving us false equivalents and, laughing at me.

Let me make this simple for you while I await Tucker’s clarification. The leader of the Republican Party is calling democrats communists and so is tucker based on his words. That’s red baiting.

The fact that Russia attacked us during the last election cycle, getting hundreds of pages of attention in the mueller report while your party leader dismissed it as a ‘witch-hunt’ is not red baiting.

To your last point focusing on history that has nothing to do with ‘commie’ ‘red baiting’. What party is the kkk now attracted to? Since the civil rights act of the 60s to present time? Those ‘fine people’ that trump brought up after the Charlotte killing? Those guys with the tiki torches chanting ‘Jews will not replace us’. Please enlighten me.

The fact that Russia attacked us during the last election cycle, getting hundreds of pages of attention in the mueller report while your party leader dismissed it as a ‘witch-hunt’ is not red baiting.

Why then the focus on Trump, the surveillance on Trump, the drawing out of the "investigation" with no evidence of collusion by Trump until after the mid-terms? The great Russian attack turned out to be Facebook ads.

Why what focus on trump? My answer to scooter, or you now onto the actual Mueller investigation in general? Are you saying the the same thing as 'witch-hunt' by dismissing the investigation via different words? I've heard trump on the topic. I've heard scooter's take. I see yours. Lets look at Mueller's words on the topic:
https://time.com/5597526/robert-muel...investigation/

“As alleged by the grand jury in an indictment, Russian intelligence officers who were part of the Russian military launched a concerted attack on our political system. … And at the same time, as the grand jury alleged in a separate indictment, a private Russian entity engaged in a social media operation where Russian citizens posed as Americans in order to interfere in the election.”

“They used sophisticated cyber techniques to hack into computers and networks used by the Clinton campaign. They stole private information, and then released that information through fake online identities and through the organization WikiLeaks. The releases were designed and timed to interfere with our election and to damage a presidential candidate.”

“The first volume of the report details numerous efforts emanating from Russia to influence the election. This volume includes a discussion of the Trump campaign’s response to this activity, as well as our conclusion that there was insufficient evidence to charge a broader conspiracy.”

The order appointing me Special Counsel authorized us to investigate actions that could obstruct the investigation. … As set forth in our report, after that investigation, if we had confidence that the President clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said that.”

Justice Department precedent “explicitly permits the investigation of a sitting President because it is important to preserve evidence while memories are fresh and documents are available. Among other things, that evidence could be used if there were co-conspirators who could now be charged.”

“I will close by reiterating the central allegation of our indictments — that there were multiple, systematic efforts to interfere in our election. That allegation deserves the attention of every American.”

That's why the investigation focused on the trump organization. No 'wiretaps' on trump. No 'just FaceBook ads'.

Newly released evidence shows Hillary's e-mails were ALL sent to the Chinese. Do we need an investigation of China attacking us during the last election cycle?

There's real irony here just like in tucker's post. You go from 'why focus on trump' to the 'lets' talk about Hillary' instead, lol.
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/n...e-email-server

A multipronged government review of whether China successfully hacked former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's private email server failed to turn up evidence of a successful breach.

Senate investigators, the FBI, the intelligence community inspector general, and the Justice Department inspector general were unable to confirm whether an intrusion into the server occurred, according to two top Republican senators who released a memo on their investigation Wednesday.

The memo from Sens. Chuck Grassley of Iowa and Ron Johnson of Wisconsin shows concerns about a Chinese state-owned company hacking Clinton's server were likely due to an over-reliance on a simple Google search.

The Senate inquiry began after an anonymously sourced article from the Daily Caller News Foundation in April 2018 said that a Chinese company succeeded in hacking the server. The report said a firm, located in the Washington, D.C., area, had access to Clinton's emails in real time, courtesy of a code embedded in the New York-based server which then made copies of the emails, some of which contained classified information.

The newly released memo shows that these concerns were likely because of mistaken cyber identity, although Grassley and Johnson stressed that “neither the committees nor the FBI were able to confirm whether an intrusion into the server occurred."

And no, we don't need an investigation into the Chinese based on your 'Newly released evidence shows Hillary's e-mails were ALL sent to the Chinese'. Because they weren't. I've read the accounts. The server admin inserted code to forward to a google account that was not the email address of a Chinese company.

I see even scooter countered your Chinese attack diversion away from Russia before going off on the google mail tangent.

That fact is, the senate investigation found nothing.

To that, I say-as I've always said about the Hillary email scandal that's been going on since the before election of trump-have the justice department find something besides conspiracies to indict. Indict, with something besides fake new from the right.

To your last point focusing on history that has nothing to do with ‘commie’ ‘red baiting’. What party is the kkk now attracted to? Since the civil rights act of the 60s to present time?.

So in kind, using that logic, what can we say about the Democrat party because the Communist Party USA is "attracted to" them?

No, I think that is your logic after reading my full quote. I was answering a specific and tired meme that the 'kkk was democrats' prior to the civil rights act of the 1960s.

If you'd like to now compare the present times Communist Party to the present times, then we wouldn't be talking as much about the kkk. We'd be talking about the rise of white nationalist groups in the USA.

And with that comparison, I went to both the Communist Party website and scoured the social media of the white nationalists. No comparison. The commies talk about inclusion and aren't out there demonstrating. The white nationalists talk about exclusion. And are definitely on a 'in your face' strategic action plan. Thanks for asking.

[tucker]

Me too post


M

[otoc]

he communist Those ‘fine people’ that trump brought up after the Charlotte killing? Those guys with the tiki torches chanting ‘Jews will not replace us’. Please enlighten me.

You not being factual. Trump specifically condemned them. His words in response to the reporter at the time: “I’m not talking about the neo-Nazis and white nationalists because they should be condemned totally.”

Funny how that answer seems to have vanished into the ether.

Let's talk about 'at the time'.

At the time in Charlotte, VA, the 'Unite the Right' rally was created by a coalition of white Supremacist groups.

They did in fact march with tiki torches and chanted 'jews will not replace us'. So much for the confederate statues.

On August 12, 2017, a car was deliberately driven into a crowd of people who had been peacefully[12][13] protesting the Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville, Virginia, killing one and injuring 28. The driver of the car, 20-year-old James Alex Fields Jr., had driven from Ohio to attend the rally.[14] Fields previously espoused neo-Nazi and white supremacist beliefs.

On August 12, trump-at the time-said:

"Thank you very much. As you know, this was a small press conference, but a very important one. And it was scheduled to talk about the great things that we're doing with the secretary on the Veterans Administration. And we will talk about that very much so in a little while. But I thought I should put out a comment as to what's going on in Charlottesville. So, again, I want to thank everybody for being here -- in particular I want to thank our incredible veterans. And thank you, fellows. Let me shake your hands. … Great people. They’re great people.

"But we're closely following the terrible events unfolding in Charlottesville, Va.. We condemn in the strongest possible terms this egregious display of hatred, bigotry and violence on many sides, on many sides. It's been going on for a long time in our country. Not Donald Trump, not Barack Obama. This has been going on for a long, long time. It has no place in America. What is vital now is a swift restoration of law and order and the protection of innocent lives. No citizen should ever fear for their safety and security in our society. And no child should ever be afraid to go outside and play or be with their parents and have a good time....

"And now to the Veteran's Administration...

This setting of equivalents 'hatred, bigotry and violence on many sides', in light of the death and injuries did not sit well with the average person.

On August 15, during an infrastructure press conference at trump tower both your quote and mine was made. And I'd argue trump still wasn't specific to the neo-nazis. He mentioned them after numerous questions by reporters that day. He also mentioned many other things. And sorry, I need to edit this Q&A because I'm not splitting another response out.

Q Was it terrorism, in your opinion, what happened?

THE PRESIDENT: As I said on — remember, Saturday — we condemn in the strongest possible terms this egregious display of hatred, bigotry, and violence. It has no place in America. And then it went on from there.

Now, here’s the thing —

Q (Inaudible) many sides.

THE PRESIDENT: Excuse me. Excuse me. Take it nice and easy. Here’s the thing: When I make a statement, I like to be correct. I want the facts. This event just happened....
..., I like to know the facts.

Q Why do Nazis like you — (inaudible) — these statements?

THE PRESIDENT: They don’t. They don’t.

Q They do. Look —

(Cross-talk.)

THE PRESIDENT: How about a couple of infrastructure questions.

Q Was it terrorism, that event? Was that terrorism?

Q The CEO of Walmart said...
THE PRESIDENT: Say it. What?

Q The CEO of Walmart said ...

THE PRESIDENT: Not at all. I think the country...

Q (Inaudible.)

THE PRESIDENT: I’d do it the same way...

Q Nazis were there.

Q David Duke was there.

THE PRESIDENT: I didn’t know David Duke was there...

Q Was this terrorism?

THE PRESIDENT: Well, I think the driver of the car is a disgrace to himself, his family, and this country. And that is — you can call it terrorism. You can call it murder. You can call it whatever you want. I would just call it as “the fastest one to come up with a good verdict.” That’s what I’d call it. Because there is a question: Is it murder? Is it terrorism? And then you get into legal semantics. The driver of the car is a murderer. And what he did was a horrible, horrible, inexcusable thing.

Q Senator McCain said that the alt-right is behind these attacks...

THE PRESIDENT: Well, I don’t know. I can’t tell you....But when you say the alt-right, define alt-right to me. You define it. Go ahead.

Q Well, I’m saying, as Senator —

THE PRESIDENT: No, define it for me. Come on, let’s go. Define it for me.

Q Senator McCain defined them as the same group —

THE PRESIDENT: Okay, what about the alt-left that came charging at — excuse me, what about the alt-left that came charging at the, as you say, the alt-right? Do they have any semblance of guilt?

Let me ask you this: What about the fact that they came charging with clubs in their hands, swinging clubs? Do they have any problem? I think they do. As far as I’m concerned, that was a horrible, horrible day.

Q You’re not putting these —

THE PRESIDENT: Wait a minute. I’m not finished. I’m not finished, fake news...

Q Sir, you’re not putting these protestors on the same level as neo-Nazis —

Q Is the alt-left as bad as white supremacy?

THE PRESIDENT: I will tell you something...
And you have — you had a group on one side that was bad, and you had a group on the other side that was also very violent. And nobody wants to say that, but I’ll say it right now. You had a group — you had a group on the other side that came charging in, without a permit, and they were very, very violent.

Q Is the alt-left as bad as Nazis?

THE PRESIDENT: Go ahead.

Q Do you think that what you call the alt-left is the same as neo-Nazis?

THE PRESIDENT: Those people — all of those people –excuse me, I’ve condemned neo-Nazis. I’ve condemned many different groups. But not all of those people were neo-Nazis, believe me. Not all of those people were white supremacists by any stretch. Those people were also there because they wanted to protest the taking down of a statue of Robert E. Lee.[

Q The neo-Nazis started this. They showed up in Charlottesville to protest —

THE PRESIDENT: Excuse me, excuse me. They didn’t put themselves — and you had some very bad people in that group, but you also had people that were very fine people, on both sides. You had people in that group.

Q (Inaudible.)

THE PRESIDENT: ...You had people in that group that were there to protest the taking down of, to them, a very, very important statue...

Q George Washington and Robert E. Lee are not the same.

THE PRESIDENT: George Washington was a slave owner. ... How about Thomas Jefferson? What do you think of Thomas Jefferson? You like him?

Q I do love Thomas Jefferson.

THE PRESIDENT: Okay, good. Are we going to take down the statue? Because he was a major slave owner. Now, are we going to take down his statue?

So you know what, it’s fine. You’re changing history. You’re changing culture. And you had people — and I’m not talking about the neo-Nazis and the white nationalists — because they should be condemned totally. But you had many people in that group other than neo-Nazis and white nationalists. Okay? And the press has treated them absolutely unfairly.

Now, in the other group also, you had some fine people. But you also had troublemakers, and you see them come with the black outfits and with the helmets, and with the baseball bats. You had a lot of bad people in the other group.

Q Who are the good people?

Q Sir, I just didn’t understand what you were saying. You were saying the press has treated white nationalists unfairly? I just don’t understand what you were saying.

THE PRESIDENT: No, no. There were people in that rally — and I looked the night before — if you look, there were people protesting very quietly the taking down of the statue of Robert E. Lee. I’m sure in that group there were some bad ones. The following day it looked like they had some rough, bad people — neo-Nazis, white nationalists, whatever you want to call them.

But you had a lot of people in that group that were there to innocently protest, and very legally protest — because I don’t know if you know, they had a permit. The other group didn’t have a permit. So I only tell you this: There are two sides to a story. I thought what took place was a horrible moment for our country — a horrible moment. But there are two sides to the country.

Does anybody have a final —

Q I have an infrastructure question.

THE PRESIDENT: You have an infrastructure —

I wouldn't call it specific considering he closed with 'But there are 2 sides to the country' considering injury and death.

[tucker]

Me too post


M

[AMDScooter]

Me too post


M

[tucker]

Me too post



M

[Dutchcedar]

It seems tucker has decided to not clarify.

OK, let's look at your questions. And it's no easy task because of how you select words and jump off into new realms while taking leaps away from what I was actually responding to. I'm in constant need of reading my past words and context with you, so I have to insert them.


Why what focus on trump? My answer to scooter, or you now onto the actual Mueller investigation in general? Are you saying the the same thing as 'witch-hunt' by dismissing the investigation via different words? I've heard trump on the topic. I've heard scooter's take. I see yours. Lets look at Mueller's words on the topic:
https://time.com/5597526/robert-muel...investigation/

That's why the investigation focused on the trump organization. No 'wiretaps' on trump. No 'just FaceBook ads'.


There's real irony here just like in tucker's post. You go from 'why focus on trump' to the 'lets' talk about Hillary' instead, lol.
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/n...e-email-server

And no, we don't need an investigation into the Chinese based on your 'Newly released evidence shows Hillary's e-mails were ALL sent to the Chinese'. Because they weren't. I've read the accounts. The server admin inserted code to forward to a google account that was not the email address of a Chinese company.

I see even scooter countered your Chinese attack diversion away from Russia before going off on the google mail tangent.

That fact is, the senate investigation found nothing.



To that, I say-as I've always said about the Hillary email scandal that's been going on since the before election of trump-have the justice department find something besides conspiracies to indict. Indict, with something besides fake new from the right.



No, I think that is your logic after reading my full quote. I was answering a specific and tired meme that the 'kkk was democrats' prior to the civil rights act of the 1960s.

If you'd like to now compare the present times Communist Party to the present times, then we wouldn't be talking as much about the kkk. We'd be talking about the rise of white nationalist groups in the USA.

And with that comparison, I went to both the Communist Party website and scoured the social media of the white nationalists. No comparison. The commies talk about inclusion and aren't out there demonstrating. The white nationalists talk about exclusion. And are definitely on a 'in your face' strategic action plan. Thanks for asking.

I'm glad you agree that Trump is not a racist and that because the communists side with Democrats, they aren't necessarily communists, just plain Jane socialists. No need to beat a dead horse further.

[Dutchcedar]

Let's talk about 'at the time'.

At the time in Charlotte, VA, the 'Unite the Right' rally was created by a coalition of white Supremacist groups.

They did in fact march with tiki torches and chanted 'jews will not replace us'. So much for the confederate statues.



On August 12, trump-at the time-said:


This setting of equivalents 'hatred, bigotry and violence on many sides', in light of the death and injuries did not sit well with the average person.

On August 15, during an infrastructure press conference at trump tower both your quote and mine was made. And I'd argue trump still wasn't specific to the neo-nazis. He mentioned them after numerous questions by reporters that day. He also mentioned many other things. And sorry, I need to edit this Q&A because I'm not splitting another response out.


I wouldn't call it specific considering he closed with 'But there are 2 sides to the country' considering injury and death.

You'll have to be more specific because none of what you posted here proves your point. It seems you're saying the second batch you quoted was specific to disclaiming those you dislike, while the first was vague, disclaiming violence on all sides. Where's the beef?

[tucker]

Me too post


M

[tucker]

Me too post


M

[tucker]

Me too post


M

[otoc]

It seems tucker has decided to not clarify.

OK, let's look at your questions. And it's no easy task because of how you select words and jump off into new realms while taking leaps away from what I was actually responding to. I'm in constant need of reading my past words and context with you, so I have to insert them.

Your party has been crying "RUSSIA" for near 3 solid years and shows no sign of stopping.... "red baiting"...

And the KKK was Southern Democrats... so what.

It seems why I brought up McCarthy’s party affiliation should be obvious if you took the time to read my full post (including Tucker’s words) instead of cherry picking words, giving us false equivalents and, laughing at me.

Let me make this simple for you while I await Tucker’s clarification. The leader of the Republican Party is calling democrats communists and so is tucker based on his words. That’s red baiting.

The fact that Russia attacked us during the last election cycle, getting hundreds of pages of attention in the mueller report while your party leader dismissed it as a ‘witch-hunt’ is not red baiting.

To your last point focusing on history that has nothing to do with ‘commie’ ‘red baiting’. What party is the kkk now attracted to? Since the civil rights act of the 60s to present time? Those ‘fine people’ that trump brought up after the Charlotte killing? Those guys with the tiki torches chanting ‘Jews will not replace us’. Please enlighten me.

The fact that Russia attacked us during the last election cycle, getting hundreds of pages of attention in the mueller report while your party leader dismissed it as a ‘witch-hunt’ is not red baiting.

Why then the focus on Trump, the surveillance on Trump, the drawing out of the "investigation" with no evidence of collusion by Trump until after the mid-terms? The great Russian attack turned out to be Facebook ads.

Why what focus on trump? My answer to scooter, or you now onto the actual Mueller investigation in general? Are you saying the the same thing as 'witch-hunt' by dismissing the investigation via different words? I've heard trump on the topic. I've heard scooter's take. I see yours. Lets look at Mueller's words on the topic:
https://time.com/5597526/robert-muel...investigation/

“As alleged by the grand jury in an indictment, Russian intelligence officers who were part of the Russian military launched a concerted attack on our political system. … And at the same time, as the grand jury alleged in a separate indictment, a private Russian entity engaged in a social media operation where Russian citizens posed as Americans in order to interfere in the election.”

“They used sophisticated cyber techniques to hack into computers and networks used by the Clinton campaign. They stole private information, and then released that information through fake online identities and through the organization WikiLeaks. The releases were designed and timed to interfere with our election and to damage a presidential candidate.”

“The first volume of the report details numerous efforts emanating from Russia to influence the election. This volume includes a discussion of the Trump campaign’s response to this activity, as well as our conclusion that there was insufficient evidence to charge a broader conspiracy.”

The order appointing me Special Counsel authorized us to investigate actions that could obstruct the investigation. … As set forth in our report, after that investigation, if we had confidence that the President clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said that.”

Justice Department precedent “explicitly permits the investigation of a sitting President because it is important to preserve evidence while memories are fresh and documents are available. Among other things, that evidence could be used if there were co-conspirators who could now be charged.”

“I will close by reiterating the central allegation of our indictments — that there were multiple, systematic efforts to interfere in our election. That allegation deserves the attention of every American.”

That's why the investigation focused on the trump organization. No 'wiretaps' on trump. No 'just FaceBook ads'.

Newly released evidence shows Hillary's e-mails were ALL sent to the Chinese. Do we need an investigation of China attacking us during the last election cycle?

There's real irony here just like in tucker's post. You go from 'why focus on trump' to the 'lets' talk about Hillary' instead, lol.
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/n...e-email-server

A multipronged government review of whether China successfully hacked former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's private email server failed to turn up evidence of a successful breach.

Senate investigators, the FBI, the intelligence community inspector general, and the Justice Department inspector general were unable to confirm whether an intrusion into the server occurred, according to two top Republican senators who released a memo on their investigation Wednesday.

The memo from Sens. Chuck Grassley of Iowa and Ron Johnson of Wisconsin shows concerns about a Chinese state-owned company hacking Clinton's server were likely due to an over-reliance on a simple Google search.

The Senate inquiry began after an anonymously sourced article from the Daily Caller News Foundation in April 2018 said that a Chinese company succeeded in hacking the server. The report said a firm, located in the Washington, D.C., area, had access to Clinton's emails in real time, courtesy of a code embedded in the New York-based server which then made copies of the emails, some of which contained classified information.

The newly released memo shows that these concerns were likely because of mistaken cyber identity, although Grassley and Johnson stressed that “neither the committees nor the FBI were able to confirm whether an intrusion into the server occurred."

And no, we don't need an investigation into the Chinese based on your 'Newly released evidence shows Hillary's e-mails were ALL sent to the Chinese'. Because they weren't. I've read the accounts. The server admin inserted code to forward to a google account that was not the email address of a Chinese company.

I see even scooter countered your Chinese attack diversion away from Russia before going off on the google mail tangent.

That fact is, the senate investigation found nothing.

To that, I say-as I've always said about the Hillary email scandal that's been going on since the before election of trump-have the justice department find something besides conspiracies to indict. Indict, with something besides fake new from the right.

To your last point focusing on history that has nothing to do with ‘commie’ ‘red baiting’. What party is the kkk now attracted to? Since the civil rights act of the 60s to present time?.

So in kind, using that logic, what can we say about the Democrat party because the Communist Party USA is "attracted to" them?

No, I think that is your logic after reading my full quote. I was answering a specific and tired meme that the 'kkk was democrats' prior to the civil rights act of the 1960s.

If you'd like to now compare the present times Communist Party to the present times, then we wouldn't be talking as much about the kkk. We'd be talking about the rise of white nationalist groups in the USA.

And with that comparison, I went to both the Communist Party website and scoured the social media of the white nationalists. No comparison. The commies talk about inclusion and aren't out there demonstrating. The white nationalists talk about exclusion. And are definitely on a 'in your face' strategic action plan. Thanks for asking.

I'm glad you agree that Trump is not a racist and that because the communists side with Democrats, they aren't necessarily communists, just plain Jane socialists. No need to beat a dead horse further.

Interesting you bring up the race card for I wrote nothing of the kind.

I also wrote you bringing up Communists was a false equivalence to the White Supremacist movement as it was no comparison. Something you don't even recognize in your response. I still think that, even with your non-response of 'because the communists side with Democrats, they aren't necessarily communists, just plain Jane socialists'.

And that dead horse of avoiding conversation by twisting conclusions with you. When can we let that horse pass?

I could have said I'm glad you agree that Russia attacked us more than a few FaceBook ads.
Or even I'm glad you think the investigation was a good thing.
Or perhaps I'm glad you think White Supremacists are a growing problem.
Or even I'm glad you now think China did not hack the Clinton email server.
Or I'm glad you think it was ironic to bring up Clinton after asking why trump was brought up.

But I can't, and won't use your logic and tactic.

My opinion is you only chose to address what I didn't say. My earlier post stands.

[tucker]

Thinly disguised me too post.


M

[otoc]

You'll have to be more specific because none of what you posted here proves your point. It seems you're saying the second batch you quoted was specific to disclaiming those you dislike, while the first was vague, disclaiming violence on all sides. Where's the beef?

Where's the beef? I responded to

he communist Those ‘fine people’ that trump brought up after the Charlotte killing? Those guys with the tiki torches chanting ‘Jews will not replace us’. Please enlighten me.

You not being factual. Trump specifically condemned them. His words in response to the reporter at the time: “I’m not talking about the neo-Nazis and white nationalists because they should be condemned totally.”

Funny how that answer seems to have vanished into the ether.

With...

Let's talk about 'at the time'.

At the time in Charlotte, VA, the 'Unite the Right' rally was created by a coalition of white Supremacist groups.

They did in fact march with tiki torches and chanted 'jews will not replace us'. So much for the confederate statues.



On August 12, trump-at the time-said:


This setting of equivalents 'hatred, bigotry and violence on many sides', in light of the death and injuries did not sit well with the average person.

On August 15, during an infrastructure press conference at trump tower both your quote and mine was made. And I'd argue trump still wasn't specific to the neo-nazis. He mentioned them after numerous questions by reporters that day. He also mentioned many other things. And sorry, I need to edit this Q&A because I'm not splitting another response out.


I wouldn't call it specific considering he closed with 'But there are 2 sides to the country' considering injury and death.

I gave you beef. I illustrated the timeline of death and injury in Charlotte. Who was demonstrating. Trumps words 'at the time'. How they were received. And how days later he was the one creating the ether with numerous statements during the infrastructure Q&A where I posted his words.

I wrote trump wasn't specific. I was specific about that. Contrary to your take where all you could write was I wasn't specific and had no beef.

I guess we will have to agree to disagree because this is going in circles where all you can do is feed my words back to me without giving us any beef.

[AMDScooter]

Thinly disguised Me Too post with added insults.


M