Woah

Rich man 😂

Of course the entire window isn't made up of pure gold, but it's one of the materials for the glass

Yeah

That’s awesome didn’t know that

Yeah m8, I think the man's got like 6 hotels. To my knowledge that's the most expensive one

Wow

Although I don't know if I'm right on that, you might have to check yourself if you want to know

Thanks for the info ^

I had no idea

How do I get republican role? @Donaldus Triumphus

<#418665835037458432>

okay thanks

Alright

“ Declaration of Julie Swetnick “

Julie claims that Mark Judge and Brett Kavanaugh were part of a rape gang. She claims to have known this about this because she witnessed the mass rape occur at many of the well over a dozen parties she attended with them, and others that ran train rapes on drugged girls. Eventually they got her, according to her story. Dozens of rape victims. Dozen of rapist. No police called. Nobody heard about this until now.

Weird

If this story is real, which I doubt, it means she hung out with a gang of serial rapist for a year. Why? What sane person would do that? Why didn’t she call the police? Why would she hang out with these people?

http://archive.today/07bG1

What a bitch lol

Pretty sad accusation, this case is going to flop without a doubt. It's got almost no evidence and even other witnesses from the same class 45 years ago think it's bullshit

It’s total bullshit. This story is clown shoes.

Hillary is campaigning with Andrew Gillum in Florida. 😂😂😂

Hahahahaha

Good one

lmao

Watching Kavanaugh's opening testimony right now, very strong; clearly he's angry at the new lows the Democrats reach everyday

Rape? Watching the leftist news sound bites I think this whole ordeal was over racism. “Old white men”... Such bullshit.

@Lokias Racism? No I believe it's quite obvious this entire ordeal was just a shitty attempt to derail the Senate confirmation, just as the post above says

Either way, it's quite bullshit

and a very low backed up accusation

You should have seen how pissed the Democrats were when that old judge announced his retirement

Kavanaugh did great.

Oh yeah no doubt about it, very strong opening statement. Best I've seen

@Donaldus Triumphus I agree it’s 100% NOT about racism, but many are somehow making into a race issue. I don’t get it at all.

Well I don't doubt that

https://youtu.be/VJGaQIorM0Y

https://youtu.be/lw2N-0clITI?t=47

wrong channel boyee

Winning!!

https://youtu.be/Thkoq6JUg2k

Graham knows his shit

He called them out. No holds barred

The narrator in this video lol

Sinatra?

yeh. Made some funny comments

“ Dianne Feinstein withholding Brett Kavanaugh document from fellow judiciary committee democrats “ by Ryan Grim on The Intercept

This is the article that leaked Christine Blasey Ford claims of sexual assault against Brett Kavanaugh that Dianne Feinstein was concealing. A mystery is who leaked this information. Many are blaming Feinstein herself, which could be the case, but who else had access to this information? According to the article, the following people had this information.

1. A person “ affiliated with Stanford University “ . This person was later found to be Ford. It’s possible that she leaked this herself. She was in contact with Washington Post so it’s not out of question that she also contacted The Intercept. However she claimed to want anonymity, and this would contradict that.

2. That letter was given to Rep. Anna Eshoo, a Democrat who represented the area. She sent it to Feinstein. This Rep, or he staff could have been the leak.

3. Feinstein herself, or her staff. She was asked if she leaked it, she said no. The Intercept also says she didn’t. It is however unclear if her staff may have been involved.

4. The FBI. This may seem unlikely, but lately the FBI has had serious problems with leaks surrounding the Trump Russia investigation. A culture of leaking seems to exist.

http://archive.today/rZrvi

Trump will get 350 electoral votes in 2020. Here's what the map will look like http://www.270towin.com/maps/d0mKr
270toWin.com
2020 Presidential Election Interactive Map
Create your own forecast for the 2020 presidential election

I'm not trying to be a troll, but the states in blue have the most idiots.

Democratic Party = criminal party
I like it!

@DarkScythe That's a pretty good and accurate forecast

A random thought I just had watching Fox.
How was Kavanuagh’s laughter and smile “seared” into her memory when it took (supposedly) a therapy session 30 years later to recover that “seared” memory.
My theory: The memory was created through therapy during a hypnosis session. She looked as if she had a weak conscience that could easily be manipulated.

I think that all people who believe In any form of Islam needs to be deported to a huge island.

Or just back to their country.

Anywher but the US is cool.

I think she’s a straight up lier. She’s a liberal professor from Stanford. She has the political ideology of By Any Means Necessary

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UWwjIjX5udc

<:Maga_hat:475771334983417877>

Shall I make one with Bernie as a third party?

Bernie should run as third party

not like bernie would even win

If Bernie Sanders ran as an independent in 2020 http://www.270towin.com/maps/kQD4o

MUST WATCH & MUST SHARE! Pres Donald Trump https://youtu.be/TODyyR5GRqw

https://youtu.be/_P762U_BPIg

https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/456843883725193237/496496980462272522/t9xqu4sfenp11.png
I N D E L I B L E I N T H E H I P P O C A M P U S

She’s no the Georgia Peach either

Anna Parkhurst is

I may or may not have been in a protest today

I was kinda paid to be there

Not gonna say who for but I will say that it involved my drone carrying a banner

total joke

“ The bottom 90 percent are still poorer than they were in 2007” by Matt O’Brien on The Washington Post

This article attempts to confuse its readers by using old information from 2016 in the context of the current year. They are trying to tie Obama’s economic failure to Trump dishonestly.
Credit https://www.reddit.com/r/headlinecorrections
http://archive.today/4ygM0

"Amid Kavanaugh controversy, Trump administration plans to relax sexual assault rules on campus" CBC News (no journalist name given)

This headline glosses over the truth by saying that the Trump administration has plans to relax sexual assault rules on college campuses. Their own article proves their bias in the 6-7th paragraphs, in which they state that this is likely focused on promoting due process, and protecting people from false accusations.

http://archive.is/DyKVA

Kennedy cracks me up, lol.
He said “if you think this [the FBI investigation] is about finding the truth, you atta put down the bong”.

Lol

Politics don’t belong in racing

Fact

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4954141-Indictment-7-GRU-Officers-Oct2018.html
BOOOOM! SEVEN NEW RUSSIAN GRU OPERATIVES INDICTED!

https://youtu.be/PwFmrI5QQFI

^ that's fucking funny who tf is reviewing these papers

Ben Shapiro BULLDOZES Palestinian home with FACTS and LOGIC

“ Russian trolls targeted ‘Star Wars: The Last Jedi’ online to online to amplify discontent: report “ by Morgan GSTATER on The Hill

This is an article about a study that claims the backlash against The Last Jedi was perpetrated by Russia. He concluded this after noticing that more than half of the dislikes were from “ bots, trolls/socks puppets or political activists” . This study is ridiculous. It’s clearly counting people that aren’t working for Russian intelligence.

http://archive.today/X6wXr

“ Brett Kavanaugh and the information terrorists trying to reshape America “ by Molly McKew on Wired

This article claims that people supporting Kavanaugh, and people who have been involved in Gamergate are information terrorist. He argues that spreading information can literally be terrorism. It specifically credits Gamergate as being original terrorist organization. The ride never ends.

http://archive.today/T7x6D

man that debate in <#418657008409903105> was dumb wish I could talk in there for that

both peeps were switching the conversation to diff things really quickly

thanks

but he guided it

I did the debate

you were more coherent

meaning?

Meaning I agree, I think both of you could have stayed on a single point a little better but you're right he was guiding you in and out of diff subjects quickly

Doesn't make for good conversation

thats how you debate them, let them guide it to where they feel confident no matter the original, and keep up the work until you end up them wanting to leave or at the original point

Not sure who you mean by "them," and idk that can sometimes lead to understanding, but based on that comment it seems like your goal isn't mutual understanding but them wanting to leave

or back to square one like you say

The goal is for them to have nothing left to debate and to see your reasoning in the end

them leaving often means they have nothing left

if they admit you changed their POV, you certainly are a god

Do you think they see your reasoning in the end or do you think they are frustrated?

hahaha yeah for sure

I just think there's a subtle but crucial difference between debating for understanding and debating for winning

mutual compassion vs tribalism

good faith vs bad faith

not accusing you of being on either end of the spectrum btw just musing on this

I think many begin to, and both really, but many don't admit defeat. I debate for understanding initially, but should it come to it simply winning. If you can make them see your point at the start, amazing, but should you be diminished to what I was there, you simply debate to win, at that point they may have simply seen your point and refused to admit, or simply were always debating to win

bad for good really

I think that will make people dig their heels in more

You will end up with very stubborn debaters on both ends of the spectrum...which is exactly how we got here

here being the modern political climate

well I see the point

Problem with the modern climate is we have those that believe what their told by a mob, and those that believe in the truth and what they can find out themselves. They both see themselves are right and the other wrong, trick is understanding by winning

But you know both sides think that right? How do you not see that that behavior is mirrored by democrats and republicans, and is harmful?

Winning is inconsequential

winning is inconsequential if its traded

traded for what?

for a win on the other side

recently with the #walkaway people have been leaving the democratic party and spreading the word from endless right winged wins

its like warfare

you can't win by killing a soldier, you win by breaking an army

I guess, I don't see that as compelling evidence for what we're talking about. the #walkaway thing feels incredibly viral and unrelated to how many republican and democratic voters there actually are. There's also tons of reports that democratic voter registration is surging, does that count as winning? Why would that count as winning if the goal is a better america? We should identify goals for our country to move towards, and moving towards those goals should be "winning," not cucking the libs or whatever

I guess I'm just thrown off by the phrase winning. Feels incredibly juvenile, like politics are just sports that don't actually impact peoples lives.

well winning for one side would be a subjectively better america though may have its own problems, winning on the other side is subjectively better for america and may have its own problems

what problems do you want it the question

truueee can we talk about that? That's much more interesting to me

That is what I consider winning, not having the problems and systems I would rather not have

For sure I feel that, I just detest the use of the word win if that makes sense, feels so childish

but like what do you guys think are big problems of our time?

the Democratic Party

lol

let's be more specific maybe?

large goverment

higher taxes

open borders

sanctuary cities, don't forget about that

that is a large proponent of open borders yes

open borders also relating to terror

Ok but I even see these as being secondary to more core issues. Why are those issues important?

sjw commie libtards lmao

you rang

because at least for us

we believe these things make a country less free and more likely to be under tyranny in some form

I'm English

for example

Cornwall, largely separate from Englands problems

but England has a very large government and bureaucracy that makes fixing problems such as open ish borders a major problem

You know @wahx , you brought up the point "moving towards those goals should be 'winning', not cucking the libs". Unfortunately there's a tremendous bias from libs to whatever trump does (which are wins)

and you know the only way we can get these things done due to the libs being so stubborn

as well as the thinking of a more diverse culture is a better culture, which to a degree may be better

is by a red wave

and there's a tremendous bias from conservatives to whatever trump does... as evidenced by your parenthesis after

but at a very specific percentage

things go from perfectly fine to horrible

thats England

Ok but let's pull back a sec. Redd I think you hit the core thing you're worried about: freedoms being hurt by various factors right?

yes

taxes government being too big and such

Let's say that's a problem, and largely I agree, that should be protected

continue

So we want our citizens to be safe and secure right

exactly

I'm just like establishing the good faith of this conversation, we have the same interests at heart

We want our people to prosper, in terms of health and finances

all of our people, rich and poor yea

yes

At least to the extent of a meritocracy

ok cool

So, we want our people to do great. Awesome. Now, there's the question: does a larger government hamper that ability

I assume via beaurocratic inefficiency...?

I spelled that wrong

Frankly the point is, we can't work together if that's what you are trying to say. Also the libs points are pretty garbage, so stumping them is pretty fun

for the most part no, BUT it does hamper freedoms

If you want progress, don't talk to the libs

Dude what I'm a lib talking to you right now about progress you're the one not wanting to talk about this

In a sense, we're doing both

Donaldus let me converse this I can relate with what he is saying

but anyway Redd, what freedoms does it hamper?

like I'm not inherently trying to argue with you rn

taxes in specific go up the larger the government, as well as the greater chance of a tyrannical government

just discuss this *super* important stuff

You know you two go at it, I'll talk when you're done

2 totally different subjects here

ok yeah we want to avoid authoritarianism and losing money to inefficiency right

I'm guessing that's what you mean by tyranny

not necessarily inefficiency but due to large government spending more money the bigger they get requireing more taxes

forgive my spelling btw

ya same haha

I think that liberals don't want a bloated government

I don't think anybody does

right there

And if they do... I disagree with them

correction

yea?

Liberals in the modern sense do want a big government, to do just about everything, classical liberal is something you are more akin to, something center and more right

I try to avoid labels and stick to specifics, but you can consider me whatever you want

Don't get a leftist and a liberal confused, a true liberal would be Republican

But I think there's a difference between a big government and a government that is too large to function efficiently, financially. What are programs that you think shouldn't exist via the government?

modern liberals - leftists

NSA

easily

Yeah don't really care about labels they seem unnecessary to individual conversations

FBI CIA

So federal crimes shouldn't be investigated?

or... just shouldn't exist I guess?

and more controversially the federal bank or whatever which controls currency

Wait so you want an unregulated currency and no federal protection from crime?

federal crimes are a thing in a sense but should not be in such a big org as they are

just wait for that

ok so you're really saying that the FBI, CIA, and NSA are too big for what they should be

and could be smaller, but not nonexistant?

federal currency was still a thing before the current whatever is in place, it was backed by silver and gold, nowadays it's backed by nothing

CIA Gone

FBI much smaller and more elite and efficient

NSA gone

unless national crisis in which case highly limited capacity

Would you be concerned that foreign governments would try to fuck with various parts of our country without these institutions?

And it would be hard to re-make an institution quickly in response to something... that seems remarkably inefficient

I know they would try, but in such a case that things like the CIA would simply not go over seas, they would work purely on our shores unless needed otherwise to protect our soil

I agree

also reforming an institution such as the NSA is far quicker than you might expect, getting to a highly efficient cost per dollar is another thing

might I suggest a video to watch? this might help a lot

How is it far quicker than I might expect? where are you pulling that from?

sure!

Like don't get me wrong I don't know that the FBI, CIA, and NSA are as efficient as they should be. But how would anybody else know that either? It's some of the effing most secretive organizations in existence.

various places like Emergency systems that don't exist otherwise already have a basis but just arent running. and PragerU rather a youtube channel, a little more biased to the right in educational content than I prefer but i like them.

wait what does PragerU have to do with this

I seriously loathe their video on morality

oh that's who you recommend

my point, more biased than I prefer just something to watch, I couldn't find the video but they have many things that explain this like taxes and big government

I don't like PragerU mostly due to their lack of introspection. Rarely in their videos do I hear "We believe this to be the case" or "although there is the possibility that" which is a huge red flag, lack of self awareness and critical thinking. They seem to think very strongly about things which I generally associate with stubbornness and stupidity. The geniuses I have met are confident, but constantly addressing nuances in issues rather than painting things as easy or obvious.

idk, I'm willing to have my mind changed about them though

If there's a few good videos I missed

if I can find it, it pertains specifically to this, i will dm it to you

It doesn't feel like they're exploring issues so much as just showing someone one perspective as though it's true

and these issues are far too complicated for that kind of reduction

obviously there are pros and cons to a large government, those nuances need to be explored not minimized

yeah send err

I don't believe as much that big governments are good, at least for the basis of america

for other countries it may be seen s better but with Americans the spirit, as we brits learned, don't like big government or excessive taxes

Americans have always resisted big government and excessive taxes, that's true. But tradition does not equal goodness, kindness, efficiency, or worth in any sense. But it does mean it should be considered seriously.

Traditions may exist for a reason, that reason should be examined. In the case of taxes, I can see the point that high taxes feel very disconnected from social improvement, because of the distance states feel from the government due to the size of america

But I don't think we should have higher taxes, really

I think the rich should have higher taxes.

The ultra rich mind you.

I guess that gets at what I think is the biggest problem of our time: wealth inequality.

though it has been tried, and enforced during a rather important time. The Great Depression, an awfully large government was in place to help make things better. And it did but with very little efficiency. As well as other places it has been done to an even greater extent and only proven the american Idea or at least supported it. Such as communism, an awfully big government coming with excess in just about every facet of it's income. And tyranny coming with it

and if I could just say something about wealth ineqaulity

Yeah implementations of communism have been disastrous, I agree.

For sure dude say everything you want to say.

Dude or dudette or dudex lol

Wealth Inequality is a large problem, but not near as big or as seen as portrayed. With the system in place in the United States it is a system of wealth growth and unequal wealth rather than under larger governments, at least in tendency, unequal or equal amounts of poverty

Sorry can you elaborate on that second sentence it confuses me

But basically you're saying it's not affecting us very badly

of course

and dudette