Timmy’s thread for general discussion

[jonmx 2,429]

8 minutes ago, Strike said:

Regardless of whether there was a larger point, when your evidence supporting your stance on the larger point is 100% wrong maybe you should rethink your stance on that larger point as well.

Regarding all these cases, of course they're all politically motivated.  Let's just talk about the classified documents case.  First off, we still don't know exactly what he had and whether he was allowed to have it.  But we know that the President can declassify pretty much anything he wants.  So, the worst thing you can say about Trump in this case is that he had documents he could have declassified but didn't.  That's a pretty weak argument.  But if we compare it to Biden's case, Biden had classified documents from his time as a senator.  There is a huge difference between what a President is allowed to do with classified documents compared to a senator.  A senator can't even look at classified docs outside of a SCIF.   Yet Biden took them home.  Whether Trump should be prosecuted or not, Biden should be subject to the same if not harsher treatment given his violations as senator.  But the excuse they gave for not prosecuting Biden was that he was too old or some crap like that.  He's too old to be prosecuted for violating our highest security protocol's but not too old to be President?  I mean, seriously dude, if you can't see how this is a politically motivated case I don't know what to tell you.  It couldn't be more clear and obvious.

The Atlanta case.  Fani met at the WH multiple times before indicting Trump.  She has operatives from the Feds in her office.  And it goes on and on.  Again, it couldn't be more clear and obvious that this case is politically motivated. 

Throw in the states trying to remove Trump from the ballot. 

This is a concerted "lawfare" effort to prevent Trump from being a presidential candidate.  That's what those of us who use data and logic to form opinions think.  Those of you who use emotion and the MSM to form their opinions may feel differently.

Wasting your breath.  Until the New York Times agrees, Tim will not even entertain the points.  The idea of a 'serious discussion' is first you must accept the facts as the elitist establishment frames them.   Democrats never have evil motives, but are the fighters of truth and justice.  Republicans associate with racists and all their facts are lies.   And that is what Tim's idea of a 'serious discussion' is.  

[Strike 5,539]

Just now, jonmx said:

Wasting your breath.  Until the New York Times agrees, Tim will not even entertain the points.  The idea of a 'serious discussion' is first you must accept the facts as the elitist establishment frames them.   Democrats never have evil motives, but are the fighters of truth and justice.  Republicans associate with racists and all their facts are lies.   And that is what a 'serious discussion' is.  

Oh, I know.  If the appeals court lowers the fine to $1 but upholds the ruling in the case Tim will be like "SEE!!!!  LEGIT CASE!!!!!"

[The Real timschochet 6,763]

9 minutes ago, Strike said:

Oh, I know.  If the appeals court lowers the fine to $1 but upholds the ruling in the case Tim will be like "SEE!!!!  LEGIT CASE!!!!!"

I won’t. But if they lower the fine to somewhere around 100-150 million, will you concede that it’s a legit case? 

[Gepetto 1,368]

 

[The Real timschochet 6,763]

19 minutes ago, Strike said:

Regardless of whether there was a larger point, when your evidence supporting your stance on the larger point is 100% wrong maybe you should rethink your stance on that larger point as well.

Regarding all these cases, of course they're all politically motivated.  Let's just talk about the classified documents case.  First off, we still don't know exactly what he had and whether he was allowed to have it.  But we know that the President can declassify pretty much anything he wants.  So, the worst thing you can say about Trump in this case is that he had documents he could have declassified but didn't.  That's a pretty weak argument.  But if we compare it to Biden's case, Biden had classified documents from his time as a senator.  There is a huge difference between what a President is allowed to do with classified documents compared to a senator.  A senator can't even look at classified docs outside of a SCIF.   Yet Biden took them home.  Whether Trump should be prosecuted or not, Biden should be subject to the same if not harsher treatment given his violations as senator.  But the excuse they gave for not prosecuting Biden was that he was too old or some crap like that.  He's too old to be prosecuted for violating our highest security protocol's but not too old to be President?  I mean, seriously dude, if you can't see how this is a politically motivated case I don't know what to tell you.  It couldn't be more clear and obvious.

The Atlanta case.  Fani met at the WH multiple times before indicting Trump.  She has operatives from the Feds in her office.  And it goes on and on.  Again, it couldn't be more clear and obvious that this case is politically motivated. 

Throw in the states trying to remove Trump from the ballot. 

This is a concerted "lawfare" effort to prevent Trump from being a presidential candidate.  That's what those of us who use data and logic to form opinions think.  Those of you who use emotion and the MSM to form their opinions may feel differently.

1. The classified case is far worse than you’re presenting here. Trump was asked to return the documents, just like Biden was. If he had done so, as Biden did, nothing would have happened. Instead Trump refused to cooperate, lied about having some of them, and attempted to hide them. They had no choice to indict and this will be shown when/if there is finally a trial. His guilt is very clear here. 
 

2. Doesn’t matter how many times Fani went to the White House (I’m taking your word on that BTW). Trump’s guilt was obvious from the moment that recording came out when he asks the Georgia Sof S to manufacture votes. He should have been indicted within weeks of that phone call. In each of these cases they waited too long to indict, that’s the only political aspect; 

 

3. Your conclusion is NOT what “those of us who use data and logic” think; it’s only what MAGA heads and other conservatives think. The rest of us think differently. But it doesn’t matter what any of us think; in each of these cases, unlike the NY fraud case, a jury will decide. I think the evidence that he is guilty is 100% in the classified docs case, 100% in Georgia, about 60-70% in Jan 6, and I’ve no idea about the hush money case, haven’t really followed it. 

[The Real timschochet 6,763]

Hey @Strike here is the National Review on the classified doc case. Apparently they don’t share your use of “data and logic”: 

https://www.nationalreview.com/2023/06/the-trump-indictment-is-damning/amp/

[jonmx 2,429]

1 hour ago, The Real timschochet said:

1. The classified case is far worse than you’re presenting here. Trump was asked to return the documents, just like Biden was. If he had done so, as Biden did, nothing would have happened. Instead Trump refused to cooperate, lied about having some of them, and attempted to hide them. They had no choice to indict and this will be shown when/if there is finally a trial. His guilt is very clear here. 
 

2. Doesn’t matter how many times Fani went to the White House (I’m taking your word on that BTW). Trump’s guilt was obvious from the moment that recording came out when he asks the Georgia Sof S to manufacture votes. He should have been indicted within weeks of that phone call. In each of these cases they waited too long to indict, that’s the only political aspect; 

 

3. Your conclusion is NOT what “those of us who use data and logic” think; it’s only what MAGA heads and other conservatives think. The rest of us think differently. But it doesn’t matter what any of us think; in each of these cases, unlike the NY fraud case, a jury will decide. I think the evidence that he is guilty is 100% in the classified docs case, 100% in Georgia, about 60-70% in Jan 6, and I’ve no idea about the hush money case, haven’t really followed it. 

1.  Lol... no, that does not make it far worse.  Trump lawyers were negotiating with them, and the FBI decided to raid them anyways.  Trump had a right to many of those docs through the presidential records act which may become part of his library.   Now Hillary Clinton destroyed her hard drives before the FBI could get them.  A clear act of obstruction.  Clinton also had her records hacked, so there was a clear breech.  Not one of Trump documents fell into Chinese or Russian hands.  There is no legitimate case that Trump was worse.  

2.  There is nothing illegal about Trump asking the governor to look for fraudulent votes.  In fact that is a legitimate role of the president in upholding laws if he believes there was election fraud.   Unlike how the media spins it, Trump did not ask for fraudulent votes.  He was looking to find miscounted or illegal votes, exactly like Gore was in 2000. 

3.  The Jan. 6th case will get thrown out.  A three judge panel of Democrats already ruled this week that the 'interfering with an official act' law does not apply to this.  The $454 million fine was a 100 percent corrupt ruling as I have explained to you numerous times, but you really don't give a fuk.  All you care is Trump is guilty.  

You have disagreed with me on many legal cases over the years, and your experts are 0 for 20 in these.  

[jonmx 2,429]

Tim has no comment on the DOJ/FBI arresting dozens of joirnalists.  Our record the last few years is worst than Putins.  Really, we need to send 20 FBI agents to Steve Bakers house (of The Blaze) and put him in an orange jump suit and shackles for doing the exact same thing that reporters from the New York Times and New Yorker did.   

Oh, but the New York Times doesn't care, so it is a non-issue.  You only f-ing retort is that my factual assertion must not be true.  What a crock. 

[The Real timschochet 6,763]

23 minutes ago, jonmx said:

Tim has no comment on the DOJ/FBI arresting dozens of joirnalists.  Our record the last few years is worst than Putins.  Really, we need to send 20 FBI agents to Steve Bakers house (of The Blaze) and put him in an orange jump suit and shackles for doing the exact same thing that reporters from the New York Times and New Yorker did.   

Oh, but the New York Times doesn't care, so it is a non-issue.  You only f-ing retort is that my factual assertion must not be true.  What a crock. 

Here is a report on Baker from NBC News.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/rcna14004
 

According to the article he turned himself into the authorities, faces misdemeanor charges, and is currently out on bail. That certainly seems to contradict your claim that he was seized and shackled by 20 FBI agents- though I certainly have no idea. I never heard of the guy.  Is NBC lying here? What parts of this story do you regard as inaccurate? 

[The Real timschochet 6,763]

He is the lead singer of a David Bowie cover band so that’s pretty cool. Too bad he caught the crazy. 

[Voltaire 5,316]

2 hours ago, The Real timschochet said:

1. The classified case is far worse than you’re presenting here. Trump was asked to return the documents, just like Biden was. If he had done so, as Biden did, nothing would have happened. Instead Trump refused to cooperate, lied about having some of them, and attempted to hide them. They had no choice to indict and this will be shown when/if there is finally a trial. His guilt is very clear here. 
 

2. Doesn’t matter how many times Fani went to the White House (I’m taking your word on that BTW). Trump’s guilt was obvious from the moment that recording came out when he asks the Georgia Sof S to manufacture votes. He should have been indicted within weeks of that phone call. In each of these cases they waited too long to indict, that’s the only political aspect; 

 

3. Your conclusion is NOT what “those of us who use data and logic” think; it’s only what MAGA heads and other conservatives think. The rest of us think differently. But it doesn’t matter what any of us think; in each of these cases, unlike the NY fraud case, a jury will decide. I think the evidence that he is guilty is 100% in the classified docs case, 100% in Georgia, about 60-70% in Jan 6, and I’ve no idea about the hush money case, haven’t really followed it. 

Some of us took the time to read the transcripts of the Trump telephone call to the Georgia Secretary of State.
 

Now would be another prime, easily verifiable opportunity to learn about how the MSM is lying to you. Know that it is impossible to both read the transcript and conclude he was taking about manufacturing votes because the entire conversation was about searching for fraudulent ballots. 
 

I can’t provide a link, I’m focking off on my phone at the Asian market while my wife is shopping.

[jonmx 2,429]

25 minutes ago, The Real timschochet said:

Here is a report on Baker from NBC News.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/rcna14004
 

According to the article he turned himself into the authorities, faces misdemeanor charges, and is currently out on bail. That certainly seems to contradict your claim that he was seized and shackled by 20 FBI agents- though I certainly have no idea. I never heard of the guy.  Is NBC lying here? What parts of this story do you regard as inaccurate? 

Steve Baker was told by the FBI a few days before they would go to his house and arrest him, much like they did another journalist Steven Horn about a year ago.  They told him to wear loose clothing because they were going to put him in an orange jump suit and hand and leg shackles.   Steven Horn is still in prison on misdemeanor charges and Steve Baker was terrified he would suffer the same fate.   Apparently there was enough of a conservstive media and Congressional backlash, that the FBI backed off and allowed him to turn himself in.   They did put him in arm and leg shackles for his court room appearance, but did not pit him in an orange jump suit.  

As far as crazy, he did nothing except report on January 6th and entered the building as a reporter, much like other journalist did.   Those associated with organizations like the New York Times or the New Yorker have never been question or arrested.  The New York Times reporter actually entered the building through a broken window, Baker entered through an open door.

You just love your two-tiered system of justice.  One of the conservatives (the negros) and one for the bootlickers.   

[jonnyutah 287]

On 2/29/2024 at 8:21 PM, The Real timschochet said:

Thats what we should do. Have them enter legally and follow the law. But that’s not working so we need to figure it out. Trump offers no good or workable solutions in this regard. 

Of course he did. The ending of  catch and release alone severely limited the number of people willing to pay thousands to the cartels. Who is going to pay all that money to not be let in?

[The Real timschochet 6,763]

22 minutes ago, jonnyutah said:

Of course he did. The ending of  catch and release alone severely limited the number of people willing to pay thousands to the cartels. Who is going to pay all that money to not be let in?

I don’t believe this would have the effect you do. I don’t think you understand, truly, the motivations of those who come here. Nor the people they are paying if any. 

In any event Trump’s attempts to end catch and release the last time around led to the separation of families. That’s not acceptable, ever. 

[The Real timschochet 6,763]

3 hours ago, jonmx said:

Steve Baker was told by the FBI a few days before they would go to his house and arrest him, much like they did another journalist Steven Horn about a year ago.  They told him to wear loose clothing because they were going to put him in an orange jump suit and hand and leg shackles.   Steven Horn is still in prison on misdemeanor charges and Steve Baker was terrified he would suffer the same fate.   Apparently there was enough of a conservstive media and Congressional backlash, that the FBI backed off and allowed him to turn himself in.   They did put him in arm and leg shackles for his court room appearance, but did not pit him in an orange jump suit.  

As far as crazy, he did nothing except report on January 6th and entered the building as a reporter, much like other journalist did.   Those associated with organizations like the New York Times or the New Yorker have never been question or arrested.  The New York Times reporter actually entered the building through a broken window, Baker entered through an open door.

You just love your two-tiered system of justice.  One of the conservatives (the negros) and one for the bootlickers.   

Anyone who went into the Capitol that day as part of the insurrection deserves jail time. How much depends on how much damage they did but they all deserve at least some time in prison. 
 

I called him crazy because apparently he cheered the rioters on and approved of it 100% and was excited that they desecrated Pelosi’s office. Crazy. 

[jonmx 2,429]

9 minutes ago, The Real timschochet said:

Anyone who went into the Capitol that day as part of the insurrection deserves jail time. How much depends on how much damage they did but they all deserve at least some time in prison. 
 

I called him crazy because apparently he cheered the rioters on and approved of it 100% and was excited that they desecrated Pelosi’s office. Crazy. 

BS.  Not the reporters for the New York Times or New Yorker.  Of course you never see anything wrong with treating negros differently. 

[The Real timschochet 6,763]

20 minutes ago, jonmx said:

BS.  Not the reporters for the New York Times or New Yorker.  Of course you never see anything wrong with treating negros differently. 

If this dude’s defense is that he was only a journalist and did not participate in the riot, and if he can prove that, he should be acquitted of the charges against him. But it certainly doesn’t sound like that is the case 

[jonmx 2,429]

5 hours ago, The Real timschochet said:

If this dude’s defense is that he was only a journalist and did not participate in the riot, and if he can prove that, he should be acquitted of the charges against him. But it certainly doesn’t sound like that is the case 

 

100 percent incorrect.  The FBI knew about this guy for years.   And when he got on the Blaze staff and was doing more visible reporting on Januarg 6th, that is when the FBI started to pressure the guy.  He has been living in fear of an FBI raid for over two years.   All he did on January 6th was reporting.   Your fallback assumption Is always the negro is guilty.   Even when there is videotape clearly showing innocent, you believe guilt because of how heavily programmed you are. 

[Dizkneelande 1,100]

3 hours ago, jonmx said:

 

100 percent incorrect.  The FBI knew about this guy for years.   And when he got on the Blaze staff and was doing more visible reporting on Januarg 6th, that is when the FBI started to pressure the guy.  He has been living in fear of an FBI raid for over two years.   All he did on January 6th was reporting.   Your fallback assumption Is always the negro is guilty.   Even when there is videotape clearly showing innocent, you believe guilt because of how heavily programmed you are. 

You’re arguing with someone who rooted for the Capitol in the hunger games. 

[Voltaire 5,316]

2 minutes ago, Dizkneelande said:

You’re arguing with someone who rooted for the Capitol in the hunger games. 

That analogy really fits the upper middle class white liberal beautifully.

[jonmx 2,429]

18 minutes ago, Voltaire said:

That analogy really fits the upper middle class white liberal beautifully.

MSNBC was just discussing how rural white Americans are our biggest threat to Democracy.  Really, American voters are the biggest threat to Democracy, what kind of bizarro logic is that?

Just imagine some conservative media discussing how 'urban blacks are the greatest threat to democracy'.  You could create an identical laundry list....highest crime rates, most likely to loot, most violent protests, highest racial bigotry....with much better factual backing than they provided.  And that would universally be accepted as gross bigotry.

But yet white/conservatives Americans are demonized in a way very remimencient to how Nazi's demonized jews.  And people like Tim have endlessly been brainwashed to the bigotry for over a decade, to the point where it is even righteous to have this hatred towards white conservative Americans.  Who cares if they are massively censored?  Who cares if the are wrongfully imprisoned?  Who cares if they are endlessly demonized in the media?  Who cares if they are discriminated against in educational opportunities and in the workplace?  It may not be the exact same as how Nazi's did to Jews or the deep south did to blacks, but it is certainly its kissing cousin.  

[Voltaire 5,316]

18 minutes ago, jonmx said:

MSNBC was just discussing how rural white Americans are our biggest threat to Democracy.  Really, American voters are the biggest threat to Democracy, what kind of bizarro logic is that?

Just imagine some conservative media discussing how 'urban blacks are the greatest threat to democracy'.  You could create an identical laundry list....highest crime rates, most likely to loot, most violent protests, highest racial bigotry....with much better factual backing than they provided.  And that would universally be accepted as gross bigotry.

But yet white/conservatives Americans are demonized in a way very remimencient to how Nazi's demonized jews.  And people like Tim have endlessly been brainwashed to the bigotry for over a decade, to the point where it is even righteous to have this hatred towards white conservative Americans.  Who cares if they are massively censored?  Who cares if the are wrongfully imprisoned?  Who cares if they are endlessly demonized in the media?  Who cares if they are discriminated against in educational opportunities and in the workplace?  It may not be the exact same as how Nazi's did to Jews or the deep south did to blacks, but it is certainly its kissing cousin.  

He assures us that we're privileged, expects us to believe it, and is shocked that we don't agree.

I was born in 1971, and now I'm 52 years old. I wasn't responsible for what happened in the 60s, I barely remember the 70s, and any notion of 'white privilege' has been a myth my entire life, except maybe the vestiges of growing up in a still not yet integrated working class, inner ring white suburb.

[supermike80 1,910]

You can say the following:

I am a proud black american

I am a proud asian american

I am a proud latino american

If you say I am a proud white american   WHITE SUPREMACIST!!!!

[The Real timschochet 6,763]

1 hour ago, jonmx said:

MSNBC was just discussing how rural white Americans are our biggest threat to Democracy.  Really, American voters are the biggest threat to Democracy, what kind of bizarro logic is that?

Just imagine some conservative media discussing how 'urban blacks are the greatest threat to democracy'.  You could create an identical laundry list....highest crime rates, most likely to loot, most violent protests, highest racial bigotry....with much better factual backing than they provided.  And that would universally be accepted as gross bigotry.

But yet white/conservatives Americans are demonized in a way very remimencient to how Nazi's demonized jews.  And people like Tim have endlessly been brainwashed to the bigotry for over a decade, to the point where it is even righteous to have this hatred towards white conservative Americans.  Who cares if they are massively censored?  Who cares if the are wrongfully imprisoned?  Who cares if they are endlessly demonized in the media?  Who cares if they are discriminated against in educational opportunities and in the workplace?  It may not be the exact same as how Nazi's did to Jews or the deep south did to blacks, but it is certainly its kissing cousin.  

Good morning. I really don’t want to respond to much of this screed but I will make 3 points: 

1. It’s pretty ironic that you believe I’ve been brainwashed. I think most rational people will read this and most of your other posts and come away thinking that the brainwashed person is you, given the amount of utter nonsense you spew. 

2. I’ve tried to tell you before how offensive your analogies are. They are absurd, disgusting, sickening. They completely destroy any validity to your complaints. I will continue to ask: are you that ignorant of history? Or have you no shame? There are no alternatives. 

3. You assert that I hate shore conservatives. News to me, Most of my family and friends are white conservatives. I considered myself one for many years. And I really don’t hate anyone. 

[jonmx 2,429]

1 hour ago, Voltaire said:

He assures us that we're privileged, expects us to believe it, and is shocked that we don't agree.

I was born in 1971, and now I'm 52 years old. I wasn't responsible for what happened in the 60s, I barely remember the 70s, and any notion of 'white privilege' has been a myth my entire life, except maybe the vestiges of growing up in a still not yet integrated working class, inner ring white suburb.

Even back in the day, there were far more white trash dirt poor whites in the south than plantation owning slave-owners.   The real enemy are the rich elitists and their puppet three-letter government minions who abuse citizens.   

[jonmx 2,429]

2 minutes ago, The Real timschochet said:

 

1. It’s pretty ironic that you believe I’ve been brainwashed.

You confuse obvious facts with irony.   Your blind obedience to the elitist brainwashing is clear to anyone outside your cult.  

[jonmx 2,429]

9 minutes ago, The Real timschochet said:

2. I’ve tried to tell you before how offensive your analogies are. They are absurd, disgusting, sickening.

What is offensive about the analogy is how close to the truth it is.  You openly crapped on Tea Partiers for a decade and now it is MAGA folks who get crapped on 24/7 by the media.   Quite frankly they are sick of this hatred they have to endure every time they turn on the TV.

[Strike 5,539]

Just now, jonmx said:

What is offensive about the analogy is how close to the truth it is.  

That's the leftist way.  When they can't discuss/debate logically they just call you a racist. 

[The Real timschochet 6,763]

1 hour ago, Voltaire said:

He assures us that we're privileged, expects us to believe it, and is shocked that we don't agree.

I was born in 1971, and now I'm 52 years old. I wasn't responsible for what happened in the 60s, I barely remember the 70s, and any notion of 'white privilege' has been a myth my entire life, except maybe the vestiges of growing up in a still not yet integrated working class, inner ring white suburb.

I don’t hold you responsible for anything you didn’t do. White privilege means you escape penalties that other races suffer. for instance you don’t get stopped by police because they wonder why someone with your skin color is driving through a nice neighborhood. When you tell people what your job is, they don’t suspect you of having achieved it through affirmative action, Women don’t automatically clutch their purses tighter when you walk by and avoid you: You don’t need to live in a sanctuary city to avoid ever having to show that you are a citizen, because nobody will ever question it. 

These, and so many more, are privileges you receive because of your white skin. I receive the same ones: we don’t notice them but they are not a myth. It’s not wrong that we have these privileges; what’s wrong is that others don’t. 

[The Real timschochet 6,763]

Just now, Strike said:

That's the leftist way.  When they can't discuss/debate logically they just call you a racist. 

I have never called Jon a racist. Nor do I think he is. Do you agree with him that the current treatment of white conservatives is akin to black people under slavery or Jews during the Holocaust? 

[The Real timschochet 6,763]

51 minutes ago, supermike80 said:

You can say the following:

I am a proud black american

I am a proud asian american

I am a proud latino american

If you say I am a proud white american   WHITE SUPREMACIST!!!!

This argument is often made at Klan meetings and other hate group get togethers. You sure you want to make it yourself? 

[jonmx 2,429]

1 minute ago, The Real timschochet said:

I have never called Jon a racist. Nor do I think he is. Do you agree with him that the current treatment of white conservatives is akin to black people under slavery or Jews during the Holocaust? 

It is not the actual slavery or Holocaust where the similarity is, it is the endless demonization and belittlement of the abuses they get which completely dehumanizing them. You may find it ridiculous, but that is why Trump is going to get 100 million votes and be the next President.  The media's assertion which you by into is that Trump voters are driven by misinformation and racism.  That is a moronic characterization of what is actually driving Trump's support.  

[Strike 5,539]

5 minutes ago, The Real timschochet said:

I have never called Jon a racist. Nor do I think he is. Do you agree with him that the current treatment of white conservatives is akin to black people under slavery or Jews during the Holocaust? 

I call BS no this.  You couch your words carefully but you've called people racists repeatedly over the years.  Given yours and Jons history at FBG's I have no doubt you've used words that conveyed that you thought he was a racist, just as you did with me. 

[Strike 5,539]

4 minutes ago, The Real timschochet said:

This argument is often made at Klan meetings and other hate group get togethers. You sure you want to make it yourself? 

Says the guy who thinks "from the river to the sea" isn't calling for the destruction of a country.

[The Real timschochet 6,763]

7 minutes ago, Strike said:

I call BS no this.  You couch your words carefully but you've called people racists repeatedly over the years.  Given yours and Jons history at FBG's I have no doubt you've used words that conveyed that you thought he was a racist, just as you did with me. 

I don’t try to avoid pointing out racism when I see it. I don’t play games about it. Just a little while ago @supermike80 made a post here that was clearly racist. (I am not calling him a racist; I don’t think he is. But the post was racist.) 

@Jon_mx is conspiratorial, angry, raving, forever a victim, delusional, often offensive, lacking any knowledge of history or shame or both. His screeds are almost unreadable. , But I don’t see any racism in there. 

[The Real timschochet 6,763]

5 minutes ago, Strike said:

Says the guy who thinks "from the river to the sea" isn't calling for the destruction of a country.

It is. What I wrote is that not everyone who chants it is aware of that fact. 

[Strike 5,539]

Just now, The Real timschochet said:

I don’t try to avoid pointing out racism when I see it. I don’t play games about it. Just a little while ago @supermike80 made a post here that was clearly racist. (I am not calling him a racist; I don’t think he is. But the post was racist.) 

@Jon_mx is conspiratorial, angry, raving, forever a victim, delusional, often offensive, lacking any knowledge of history or shame or both. His screeds are almost unreasonable, But I don’t see any racism in there. 

The lack of self awareness in this sentence is mind boggling!!! 

[supermike80 1,910]

1 minute ago, The Real timschochet said:

I don’t try to avoid pointing out racism when I see it. I don’t play games about it. Just a little while ago @supermike80 made a post here that was clearly racist. (I am not calling him a racist; I don’t think he is. But the post was racist.) 

@Jon_mx is conspiratorial, angry, raving, forever a victim, delusional, often offensive, lacking any knowledge of history or shame or both. His screeds are almost unreasonable, But I don’t see any racism in there. 

I doubt I made a racist post.   Very unlike me.  You most likely perceived it that way, cause you see it in everything

[The Real timschochet 6,763]

Just now, supermike80 said:

I doubt I made a racist post.   Very unlike me.  You most likely perceived it that way, cause you see it in everything

It is unlike you. It surprised me. 

[The Real timschochet 6,763]

2 minutes ago, Strike said:

The lack of self awareness in this sentence is mind boggling!!! 

I’m sure you feel that way. But I would argue that none of those adjectives apply to me, Delusional maybe.