Triggered: Stories to make you mad.

Originally posted by Surtur
Are you going to explain how exposing something you claim makes us look bad to other countries is putting country before party?

Did anyone actually say that this was putting country before party?

Originally posted by Surtur
Are you going to explain how exposing something you claim makes us look bad to other countries is putting country before party?

^ Surt doesn't want the media to show Trump events as they've actually happened, he wants the media to show events in a dolled up and painted version. Kim Jung-un would be impressed.

Originally posted by Firefly218
You have to understand that from a Democrat's perspective, Trump is a genital wort on the cock of America. So the best thing they can do for America is remove the wort.

Lol but this only helps the country if it leads to Trump being removed from office early. This is a pipe dream though. How does it help our country to destroy our credibility in pursuit of a pipe dream? I truly do not get it.

Originally posted by BackFire
Did anyone actually say that this was putting country before party?

It's just Surt's silly twist/spin distraction

Originally posted by Surtur
Wait so there is 100% concrete proof campaign funds were used?

A campaign expense

Originally posted by Firefly218
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2018/01/22/watchdog-group-files-complaint-against-trump-campaign-over-reported-payout-to-stormy-daniels/?utm_term=.36f6a30ca1ed

A campaign expense

You lost him at "Washington post"

Originally posted by BackFire
Did anyone actually say that this was putting country before party?

No, but they did praise Jeff Flake for virtue signaling about donating to a democrat because he was putting country over party.

How does this put country over party and if it doesn't, how aren't these people pieces of shit?

Oh wait, so the Washington Post, is now proof it happened? You are joking right?

Originally posted by Robtard
^ Surt doesn't want the media to show Trump events as they've actually happened, he wants the media to show events in a dolled up and painted version. Kim Jung-un would be impressed.

Are you going to explain how this helped the country?

Originally posted by Surtur
No, but they did praise Jeff Flake for virtue signaling about donating to a democrat because he was putting country over party.

How does this put country over party and if it doesn't, how aren't these people pieces of shit?

How does Jeff Flake relate to this? There is no connection between this and that.

Originally posted by Robtard
It's just Surt's silly twist/spin distraction

Distracting from what? I've never understood this comeback. Is Surtur distracting Mueller? What does that even mean?

Originally posted by Firefly218
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2018/01/22/watchdog-group-files-complaint-against-trump-campaign-over-reported-payout-to-stormy-daniels/?utm_term=.36f6a30ca1ed

A campaign expense

Who says you can't use campaign funds to pay off a prostitute to stay quiet? Duh.

"Depends on what the definition of is is"

Bill Clinton

Originally posted by BackFire
You lost him at "Washington post"

No, the article lost me at :

"This settlement should have been considered a campaign expense “because the funds were paid for the purpose of influencing the 2016 presidential general election,”

So it's opinion, not fact.

Originally posted by BackFire
How does Jeff Flake relate to this? There is no connection between this and that.

Why is this hard to get? Virtue signaling over someone putting country before party.

Now we have people doing the opposite. I want an explanation for how this helps. There is no reason it should be difficult.

Or is it only important for republicans to put country before party?

Originally posted by Blindside12
Oh wait, so the Washington Post, is now proof it happened? You are joking right?

Originally posted by Firefly218
The source of the money is not known, but nevertheless it was money aimed at affecting the election and then never reported

So there is zero actual evidence?

Or: it could have come directly from Trumps own pocket, correct?

If so, how is it not bullshit because when you spew shit about campaign finances it makes it seem like it for sure came from other people. But you know it could have technically come from his own pocket.

That is weasel behavior.

Does anyone realize not a single lawsuit against Trump from everything from the emaulments clause to the 1000 others that have been in the courts. Not a single one has turned out in the suiters favor?

Originally posted by Firefly218
The source of the money is not known, but nevertheless it was money aimed at affecting the election and then never reported

So you just admitted there is no proof. Why are you talking about this as fact then when you get called out?

Originally posted by Blindside12
Does anyone realize not a single lawsuit against Trump from everything from the emaulments clause to the 1000 others that have been in the courts. Not a single one has turned out in the suiters favor?