Anonymous #1 1d

All previous administrations have, it’s called foreign policy and soft American influence in its global ambitions. What Trump is doing is an unprecedented amount of fraud to directly benefit himself and his supporters.

75

Anonymous #1 1d

Congressionally appropriated funds to programs you don't like is actually not the same as simply ordering the justice department to pay 2 billion dollars to his followers for made up grievances. Sorry, you're going to have to try harder than that

54

Anonymous #1 1d

Shut up pedo lover

40

Anonymous #5 1d

Well of course Google isn’t going to mention the current president bruh

66

Anonymous #5 1d

Imagine googling who’s the most corrupt president and only believing what google tells you

54

He is a rapist, but if he weren’t, then you’d be okay with him being a felon??

91

“Over dramatized?” They’re felonies.

49

ur an actual clown

36

Anonymous #3 1d

Lol let’s talk abt bill Clinton

44

u just as dumb as him😂😂😂

34

HE IS A RAPIST he was held civically liable and has had well over 20 accusers. He’s the most accused position in US history of rape and sexual assault/harrasment you dumb fuck

66

Jean e Carrol and Ivanka trump are 2 of the 28 women who have come forward alleging sexual misconduct or rape in the 50 years since 1974 . https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Trump_sexual_misconduct_allegations

20

Oh no I hurt the little chuds feelings with facts

34

Anonymous sage_train38 1d

4 to 6 accusations vs 28 you stupid fuck but sure go ahead and bring up a neo con liberal that I want to see prosecuted also

5

The conservative idiot who ball licks Trump and this administration telling others to have critical thinking is an insane amount of irony

26

Anonymous #5 1d

The true extent of the corruption of Donald trumps administration has not even been reveled yet, we have had 30+ years to investigate the corruption of past presidents. Currently researchers estimate that the trump family including extended family the have all but dubbled there wealth from 1.3 billion to over 3 billion with the next closest corrupt American presidents making only hundreds of millions

25

Bro you deep throat this administrations boots. How about you go fight the Epstein wars little buddy? You ball lick billionaires and corporations thinking you’re one of them NEWSFLASH you’re a fucking dog to them. An animal to be exploited and abused.

10

Anonymous #16 1d

He and his family have doubled their net worths he has pardoned literal criminals drug dealers, white collar fraudsters, scammers, he’s spent millions of tax payer dollars on worthless projects like the Epstein ballroom, the pathetic military parade that was thrown, given millions more to Israel gave millions to foreign countries. What fucking rock are you living under pedo defender?

58

Anonymous #9 1d

The shit he’s done make watergate look like child’s play are you fucking kidding me?!

19

Anonymous #9 1d

Dude his entire fucking administration is covering for an elite child trafficking pedophile ring of billionaires and CEOs

22

Anonymous #19 1d

I like the way you think. I commented how nixon and harding were far more corrupt and so far ive been just downvoted without any real explanation. No one in here wants to articulate an actual response and rather just speak in opinion rather than fact.

4

Anonymous #9 1d

You’re a fucking moron if you think covering up a pedophile ring of the worlds elites is not the most vile corrupt thing ever done in the history of this country

9

Anonymous #19 1d

The only reasons you’d have an issue with this is simply because you are a MAGA cuck who protects pedophiles. Lol

1

Anonymous #4 1d

You can criticize Trump using things that are actually documented: the fake elector scheme, the classified documents case, attempts to pressure state officials after the 2020 election, conflicts tied to his businesses while in office, multiple indictments, and people from his administration being convicted or investigated. Those are real events with court cases, recordings, testimony, and evidence behind them.

4

Anonymous #4 1d

Please, even though we are not engaging face to face in discussing theses issues please refrain from cursing it genuinely ads nothing to the discussion besides excess emotional tension. Regarding the atrocity’s that America has perpetrated, I don’t think anyone here is denying that America has done terrible things to almost every country under the sun, but would you not want to prevent them or stop them from happening, how does comparing these atrocities to others justify not dooing anything?

4

Anonymous #19 1d

“We ShOuLd DeBaTe ThIs BeTtEr” Hey why is the administration you support saying they will not go after anyone involved in the Epstein files? Said that publicly TRUMP HIMSELF said it. You can write it off as a hoax and cry about it being “fake” like your dear leader all you want. You can’t just fake 3 million documents and 1 million mentions of that man’s filthy fucking name.

1

Anonymous #4 1d

But saying the administration is “covering for an elite child trafficking ring” like it’s an established fact is completely different. Watergate had the Nixon tapes, congressional hearings, FBI investigations, arrests, convictions, and ultimately Nixon resigning. That’s why it’s considered one of the biggest proven corruption scandals in U.S. history. There’s a difference between documented political scandals and theories that still haven’t been proven.

6

Anonymous #10 1d

People like you…

10

Anonymous #19 1d

Do you have a sister?

8

Anonymous #9 1d

It is an established fact? Are you blind? Have you not been paying attention? Have you actually looked into the Epstein files and how much they have redacted the names of people whose names should have been redacted because they were involved or had knowledge of evil shit happening? Shut the fuck up with your pseudo intellectual BULLSHIT

9

Anonymous #9 1d

The Epstein files are real you absolute moron. The only person who says they aren’t is Trump! 🤣🤣🤣

7

Anonymous #4 1d

Nobody said the Epstein files aren’t real. Epstein was real, the trafficking was real, and there are absolutely powerful people connected to him. The part you’re jumping over is proving that Trump’s administration was actively “covering for” a global trafficking ring. That’s a completely different claim.

5

Anonymous #4 1d

Having redactions in court documents also doesn’t automatically mean “everyone redacted is guilty.” A lot of names get redacted for legal/privacy reasons, ongoing investigations, victims, or because someone was mentioned but never charged. If there was evidence on the level of Watergate, you’d be seeing criminal convictions, congressional investigations, leaked recordings, sworn testimony, and resignations tied directly to that accusation, not just people connecting dots online.

8

Anonymous #9 1d

Oh yeah all great points sorry I’m kinda focused on the whole “CHILD SEX TRAFFICKING RING” you know kinda just stands out pretty strongly. Especially when he ran his campaign on releasing those same files and stalled and stalled and stalled and then said they were a hoax. And then needed a majority vote from democrats to finally say “yeah just do it” and then stalled some more when they didn’t do it when they were told to.

-1

Anonymous #4 1d

It’s always funny when people say they want an “intellectual debate” and then immediately switch to “are you blind,” “moron,” and “shut the fuck up” the second someone asks for evidence instead of assumptions. If your argument is strong, it should survive scrutiny without turning into insults.

10

Anonymous #9 1d

They broke the law. Literally. Redacting the names of people who were involved in Epsteins affairs who WERE NOT VICTIMS is against the fucking law put into place by Ro Khanna and Thomas Massie. The Epstein transparency act. They even said publicly multiple times Trump and his administration are violating the rule of law. And the spirit of the law.

20

Anonymous #4 1d

Finally a valid claim. If they violated transparency laws or improperly redacted names, then criticize that specifically. That’s a fair argument. But there’s still a huge gap between “the administration may be withholding information” and “they are knowingly protecting a global trafficking ring.” One is a political/legal accusation that can be investigated in court. The other is a massive criminal conspiracy claim that requires direct proof.

2

Anonymous #9 1d

It specifically states that they were not allowed to redact the names of people regardless of damage to public image, political standing, or public embarrassment. You wanna talk victims huh? Hey you should really research the shit you’re talking about because they LEFT THE NAMES OF SEVERAL VICTIMS UN REDACTED.

5

Anonymous #4 1d

This debate is turning away from the original debate. The issue is you keep jumping from “there may have been illegal redactions or mishandling” straight to “this proves the administration is protecting a global trafficking ring.” Those are not automatically the same claim.

3

Anonymous #9 1d

No we wouldn’t see criminal convictions you stupid pseudo intellectual asshole. Because the entire administration is criminal, this administration pardons criminals. Actual criminals. Drug traffickers, scammers, fraudsters, various white collar criminals. We have less white collar criminal prosecutions in this country in the last 2 years than we’ve had since the fucking 80s

5

Anonymous #4 1d

And there it is again. Youre such a sad human being. Every time the conversation gets pushed toward “okay, what can actually be proven,” it instantly becomes “pseudo intellectual asshole” instead of evidence. You can argue corruption, selective prosecution, abuse of pardons, or declining white collar enforcement without turning every disagreement into insults and conspiracy leaps.

1

Anonymous #9 1d

No, you obviously won’t see any investigations from a DOJ and congressional majority that are clearly acting as the president’s personal judicial with the only intent to preserve their rule, not of law mind you. The country is no longer one of laws (mostly) equally applied to all. Don’t be so naive and gullible, open your eyes…

6

Anonymous #2 1d

I love rage-baiting people argumentatively

6

Anonymous #9 1d

They aren’t conspiracy leaps! There’s plenty of evidence that this administration is just ignoring completely. Kash Patel fucking lied under oath in threat of perjury! He lied saying Epstein wasn’t trafficking children to other people he didn’t have clients. THERES EMAILS AND TEXTS TALKING ABOUT SELLING CHILDREN LIKE CARS. Talking about specs of them. Like yes you are an asshole if you really think this administration is following any form of the law or morality for that matter

10

Anonymous #9 1d

Plenty career politicians, lawyers, and military officers have resigned from all bodies of government for the very same reasons you claim have not manifested themselves.

8

Anonymous #4 1d

Mind you, i dont actually care and im just arguing with you because of how heated you are right now.

0

I specifically sent that to make you even more mad. Cant you recognize that🥹 i love you man, just know youre loved and its not that serious

-1

Anonymous #9 1d

I’m talking about a child sex ring that’s been thriving under cover of elites for decades. And you’re making jokes. Bro fuck you. Eat shit incel

6

Anonymous #4 1d

I only started cracking jokes when you wanted to turn towards insults rather then logical arguments. Youre whats wrong with this world. Youd rather insult people and scream then have an intellectual debate. I wasnt joking and was taking this seriously until you wanted to insult me. This conversation went this way because of you and you only

-1

Anonymous #4 1d

Also not sure if yk what incel means, but its not applicable here

0

Anonymous #19 1d

“Dubbled” lmao

-2

Actually, he was convicted of sexually abusing Carol in civil proceedings, only missing a rape conviction because of NY’s narrow statutory definition, even though the same judge clearly stated the proven conduct fits the common definition of rape.

15

Anonymous sage_train38 1d

Clinton is not our president. We deserve answers from the president we have right now.

15

Anonymous #3 1d

He’s not a rapist but ok

-14

What a dumbass sentence I just read

9

Anonymous #25 1d

please tell me how u “think he is corrupt” . Quite the claim for no evidence. Would love to debate you

-13

Anonymous #22 1d

Because it’s so hard to look it up

4

Anonymous #13 1d

When did anybody say that?

1

Anonymous #26 1d

He has laughed in an interview saying a girl said ‘it was sexy to be raped by me’ and we have proof in the files and he has done other things before presidency

8

Ok explain how that works? He has been convicted of sexual abuse while admitting to being a rapist on screen and on record. If you accuse them of being a rapist, that does nothing unless you have taken the rape kit or have other proof and documents as that is how civil court hearings work. Got that, baby?

2

Anonymous #29 1d

Well, tell me, sense you’ve looked it up.

6

Anonymous sage_train38 1d

Clinton was also a horrible human and had no place in office. What else is there to talk about babes?

6

Anonymous #22 1d

Her name's E Jean Carroll

6

Anonymous #27 1d

Racism is also a major issue. I am white and he is a piece of shit. Why don’t we throw him into a concentration camp with his wife and see how that goes

9

Anonymous #6 1d

Nope, but sadly we have to be loud about it to get heard over the psycho’s who call themselves MAGA

1

Anonymous #28 1d

Well, it sucks for her. She should have reported it before he became president.

9

Anonymous #4 1d

Throwing random numbers around doesn’t change the fact that accusations aren’t convictions. If we’re talking facts, Bill Clinton flew on Epstein’s plane multiple times and had documented connections too. Holding one side accountable but ignoring the other isn’t ‘critical thinking.

-5

Anonymous #22 1d

She did dumbass

4

Anonymous #22 1d

Wow, you really are just a pile of shit.

1

Anonymous #22 1d

Like how can you try arguing something you don't know anything about. MAGA are some of the dumbest people on this earth I swear

17

Anonymous #28 1d

Never happened they invented the name Jean just for this fake case

-4

Anonymous reprobate 1d

Yep, and all the other woman’s names are fake too. Fake people, fake news. Fake fake fake. Him admitting he is a pervert multiple times, just a joke. Him being recorded doing and saying perv stuff. Fake news

10

Anonymous reprobate 1d

Bro she’s literally an American journalist. She won $5 million in the case and then $83.3 million for defamation of her name

19

Anonymous reprobate 1d

Oh and don’t forget his late ex wife who filed a lawsuit about violent assaults. She ended up withdrawing because of how badly she was being defamed. Jill Harth. Only withdrew because trump ‘settled’ with her as he didn’t want that in the news. Katie Johnson filed the claim for both trumps don Jefferey Epstein, but ended up withdrawing just before the hearing- hmm I wonder why…

13

Anonymous #9 1d

Then he should release the files.

3

Anonymous #4 1d

Lmao cry some more baby

-2

Anonymous reprobate 1d

I will, I mean thinking about all you pedophile lovers is gut wrenching.

11

Anonymous sage_train38 1d

Oh guess what- TRUMP WAS ACCUSED CLINTON WAS NOT

3

Anonymous #29 1d

You sound mad someone is getting this b-bussy (Baby bussy)

-3

Anonymous #8 1d

Btw when you google it, it tells you it’s hard to list and then later says ‘1. DONALD TRUMP’

5

Anonymous #3 1d

(When it proves my point I believe it, when it doesn’t I cry wolf)

0

Anonymous #5 1d

You failed to mention how those are numbers 2, 3 and 4 and that the first labeled one is Donald Trump.

14

Anonymous #28 1d

Apparently not

-1

Anonymous #13 1d

Literally ai generated but ok sis

-10

Anonymous #31 1d

That is nootttt ai generated those pics have been out for years before ai was capable of that but ok sis

16

Anonymous #16 1d

Fr like do you guys ever read a history book? They never read about Grant or Nixon 🫩

1

Anonymous #26 1d

Yes he is. What would you call forcefully jamming your fingers in someone's pussy without their consent? Foreplay?

7

Anonymous #28 1d

She literally admitted that the whole thing was made up😭 also it was a civil case not a criminal one, because it was outside of the window to report the “crime”. Also a civil case proves literally nothing, it holds the same weight in the court system as a child support case.

-4

Anonymous #32 1d

My point exactly

-1

Anonymous #22 1d

I don’t like him either, but why are we accepting unproven statements over actual facts

-2

Anonymous sage_train38 1d

Don’t think anyone said anything about dems being clean either…. this post isn’t even about them, that’s its own separate thing. Funny how yall bring dems up any time trump is discussed. can’t it just be about one thing and then the other rather than one versus the other??

13

Anonymous #31 22h

When did Grant or Nixon rob 1.8B from the treasury? Idiot

5

Anonymous #9 22h

Which other president in history has robbed 1.8 BILLION from the treasury????

7

Anonymous #34 22h

hat’s kind of the point though. You can’t just throw out “he robbed $1.8 billion from the treasury” like it’s an uncontested fact without showing exactly what policy, transaction, court ruling, or evidence you’re referring to. There’s a huge difference between accusing a president of corruption, criticizing government spending, and claiming literal theft from the Treasury. People keep treating political opinions, suspicions, and proven criminal acts as if they’re all the exact same thing.

-3

Anonymous #34 22h

The $1.8B fund is real, but “robbed the Treasury” is still wording it like a proven criminal theft. The factual claim is that his DOJ created a nearly $1.8B fund for Trump allies claiming political targeting, which critics are calling corrupt and unconstitutional. That’s a serious controversy, but it’s not the same as saying a court has proven he personally stole $1.8B from the Treasury.

-2

Anonymous #35 22h

The U.S. is currently ranked around 29th in the world on Transparency International’s Corruption Perceptions Index with a score of 64/100.

-3

Anonymous OP 22h

What criminal court convicted him?

-1

That’s what I’ve been trying to explain this entire time. Nixon and Harding weren’t personally convicted, but the reason they’re remembered as corrupt is because there was actual documented evidence surrounding their administrations: Watergate tapes, arrests, convictions, congressional investigations, Teapot Dome bribery scandals, etc.

-1

So ironically you’re proving my point, not yours. “Corrupt” and “criminally convicted” are not the same thing. But neither of those automatically make every conspiracy theory true either. There’s a middle ground between “completely innocent” and “every accusation on the internet is established fact.”

-1

Anonymous #9 21h

Wtf are you talking about? I don’t need him to be criminally convicted (never going to happen regardless of his guilt) to know he’s corrupt. What were Nixon and Harding convicted of?

15

Anonymous #9 21h

It’s not a conspiracy theory, idiot. It’s literal court documents and news articles showing Trump “settled” with himself for 1.8B

10

Anonymous #34 21h

And again, you keep changing the wording. “Trump settled with himself for $1.8B” is not the same thing as “Trump personally stole $1.8B from the Treasury.” Those are two completely different claims. If your argument is that the fund was corrupt, unethical, unconstitutional, politically self serving, or an abuse of executive power, okay, argue that. Plenty of critics are.

-3

Anonymous #9 21h

No it’s not. Settling with himself and robbing is the mechanism by which he’s robbing the treasury

9

Anonymous #34 21h

Also the constant “idiot” replies while talking about intellectual honesty is getting a little ironic at this point.

-4

Anonymous #9 21h

They are functionally the same freaking this in this instance. “Most corrupt” is inherently subjective, but this is a documented fact.

15

Anonymous #34 21h

If you can find me a link to this or the court hearing ill retract my comment.

-1

Anonymous #9 21h

You’ve strayed so far from your original statement that Nixon and Harding are somehow more corrupt that idk wtf you’re even trying to argue anymore

13

Anonymous #9 21h

Because it’s truly difficult to have a conversation with someone who literally cannot comprehend basic logic

9

Anonymous #34 21h

No, my original point never changed. I literally said calling Trump corrupt is a valid opinion. What I pushed back on was treating every accusation and conspiracy claim as automatically proven fact.

-3

Anonymous #34 21h

You’re also acting like “who’s more corrupt” has some objective scoreboard attached to it. Nixon had Watergate tapes, obstruction of justice, FBI and congressional investigations, dozens of indictments and convictions tied to his administration, and resigned facing impeachment. Harding’s administration had Teapot Dome, which is still considered one of the biggest government corruption scandals in U.S. history.

-2

Anonymous #34 21h

If you think Trump is worse, fine. That’s a subjective argument. But notice how we somehow went from “most corrupt president” to trafficking rings, hidden names, stolen billions, and now “I don’t even know what you’re arguing.” That’s because every time one point gets challenged, the argument shifts somewhere else.

-2

Anonymous #9 21h

wtf do you need a link to??? read any news article on the subject. not “conspiracy theories”

16

Anonymous #9 21h

No, your first comment on this chain is that Nixon and “Warren” are more corrupt

13

Anonymous #34 21h

If its so easy to find one, then it should be super easy for you to find one to prove your point

-3

Anonymous #34 21h

Yes… and then the conversation evolved beyond a single sentence because people started making way bigger claims than “Trump is more corrupt than Nixon.” My position on that hasn’t even changed. I still think Nixon and Harding belong at the top because their administrations produced some of the most documented corruption scandals in U.S. history.

-3

Anonymous #34 21h

The difference is I’m separating “I think X president is more corrupt” from “therefore every accusation against them is automatically proven.” Apparently nuance is illegal now.

-2

Anonymous #9 21h

“Considered” by whom? Even ignoring everything else Trump has done over the last decade, can you actually argue that any of those things put together are more corrupt then settling a lawsuit with yourself to take $1.8 billion of taxpayer money?

12

Anonymous #34 21h

“Considered” by historians, legal scholars, political scientists, and literally decades of public analysis around Watergate and Teapot Dome. Nixon had tapes proving obstruction of justice, mass investigations, dozens of convictions tied to his administration, and resigned facing impeachment. Teapot Dome involved federal oil reserves being secretly leased for bribes and became one of the biggest corruption scandals in U.S. history.

-3

Anonymous #9 21h

a .gov link is literally the first result on google. not really proving your intellectual / research skills here: https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-announces-anti-weaponization-fund

13

Anonymous #34 21h

As ive said before. As for the $1.8B fund, yes, it’s real and extremely controversial. Multiple major outlets have reported on it and critics are calling it unethical, unconstitutional, and self serving. But even those reports are not saying “Trump stole $1.8 billion for himself.” The actual claim is that the DOJ created a taxpayer funded “Anti-Weaponization Fund” as part of settling Trump’s IRS lawsuit.

-3

Anonymous #9 21h

This isn’t “nuance” this is blatant unwillingness to look at facts

12

Anonymous #34 21h

I literally mentioned that exact reference you said earlier. You aren’t intellectually smart are you

-1

Anonymous #9 21h

You keep trying to present something that is not even contested as a “conspiracy theory”

12

Anonymous #9 21h

Do any of these analyses incorporate Trumps 1.8B fund? Unlike you, I’m able to think for myself when new info becomes available

9

Anonymous #34 21h

Ive looked at the facts, youre just connecting dots that arent there.

-2

Anonymous #34 21h

Ive already mentioned it but i guess you cant read.🥹

-2

Anonymous #9 21h

Jesus christ. Are you able to use basic logic to understand the consequences of using 1.8B to pay out allies with no oversight?

7

Anonymous #34 21h

And this is where we actually agree more than you think. If taxpayer money is being used to reward political allies with weak oversight, that absolutely deserves scrutiny and criticism. The issue is I never argued “there are no consequences” or that it isn’t potentially corrupt. I argued that calling it “literal theft from the Treasury” as if that’s already been legally established is different from arguing it’s unethical, abusive, or corrupt in practice.

-2

Anonymous #34 21h

You keep acting like I’m defending the policy when I’m really just separating accusations, opinions, and proven facts into different categories. That’s basic logic too.

-1

Anonymous #9 21h

wtf even is your argument? theft of this magnitude doesn’t involve some guys wearing ski masks and striped shirts literally breaking into the treasury and stealing physical money

15

Anonymous #9 21h

i’ve already explained how this settlement is the means by which he’s stealing taxpayer money, but apparently that’s beyond your comprehensions

8

Anonymous #34 21h

Are you illiterate? That’s the funny part, we basically are in agreement on the core issue. I’ve already said multiple times that if taxpayer money is being redirected in a self serving way with weak oversight, that absolutely can be corrupt. The only thing I pushed back on was stating “Trump literally stole $1.8B from the Treasury” as if that exact claim has already been legally established.

-4

Anonymous #9 21h

“can be corrupt” you’re so desperate to defend your daddy that you’ll ignore basic facts and logic. or you’re an idiot. neither is flattering

8

Anonymous #34 21h

Have you ever studied law? Nothing is certain until proven by a court

-3

Anonymous #9 21h

oh my god. now we’re back to my original comment. i’m done talking in circles with you

10

Anonymous #34 21h

Good

-2

Anonymous #31 20h

those are NOT ai generated. please educate yourself!

9

Anonymous #33 19h

Nah they’re obsessed with only attacking the other side because their arguments only hold up for so long until the proof comes back and kicks them in the butt. That’s why it’s always ‘claimed, minor argument, opposing rebuttal, verbal attack, and then it closes with anger and usually a ‘well clearly you won’t listen to reason so I’m finished here’ kind of statement. I’m used to these debates

1

Anonymous #26 19h

How many criminal courts rule the wrong things? How many cases have been proven to be incorrect? How many cases have been sept under the rug and ignored when it involves a person of power? Many. Loads. Rich and famous people get away with heinous acts every day because they have money

-1

Brother there are thousands of reasons to hate Trump lmao

8

Nah I'm white

7

a valid reason to hate him is him lying to us… like a hundred times

8

Anonymous #36 19h

Way more than a hundred

11

Anonymous #28 19h

well yes i just said a random number ngl

1

yeah cuz ur weird asf

1

Oooooh and the racism emerges!

-1

And how would you feel if you got body slammed in the street, pinned down by multiple men, cuffed and thrown into a vehicle despite insisting on your citizenship, then thrown into a dirty infectious facility where abuse runs rampant, and then get sent to a country you have never lived in?

1

Anonymous #26 18h

Hey, I asked you a question. What would you call that?

3

Anonymous #9 8h

Nixon and Harding were not more corrupt though. You're getting downvoted because you're saying wrong things.

1

Anonymous #19 8h

Debates are meaningless. This isn't an invitation to debate. I don't debate whether the sky is blue. Trump is, by any meaningful definition, corrupt. If you disagree, it's because you're misinformed or because you like his corruption. Whether or not it happens is not up for dispute. There may be two beliefs to every issue, but that doesn't make both legitimate

8

Anonymous #9 8h

1.9 billion dollars he just declares is his and gives out to his friends, on top of openly insider trading at unprecedented scales while also openly taking bribes for pardons, faaaarrrrr outstrips anything Nixon or Harding did. Jan 6>>>>>>>>>>> watergate.

4

Anonymous OP 8h

This is so true and ily for this. You either see the truth or put the blindfold over your own eyes

1

Anonymous #3 8h

Those replies always make me giggle. Please, tell me how taking bribes for pardons (on the record!) is not corrupt. I'm so interested in the good faith reasoning I'm sure #19 will give me

6

Anonymous #10 8h

This is a real low iq opinion. Corrupt economies don't get as much investment. Corrupt presidents do shit like start wars that crash oil markets (actively making everything more expensive) because they're surrounded by cronies and yes men. This shit affects us too

5

Anonymous #9 8h

Trump is the first U.S. president to be criminally indicted, facing dozens of felony charges including those related to the Espionage Act and falsifying business records. only president to be impeached twice. first for soliciting foreign interference in a U.S. election and second for inciting the January 6th Capitol insurrection. Felony Conviction: In 2024, he became the first president convicted of felonies (34 counts) for criminally false business filings.

3

Anonymous #3 8h

Unlike Nixon, who eventually surrendered tapes under court order, Trump has been characterized by a strategy of total "stonewalling" and ignoring congressional subpoenas Critics argue Trump outdid Nixon by turning the Department of Justice and FBI into "personal revenge police," targeting political foes and critics

5

Anonymous #3 8h

While Harding's cabinet took bribes, Trump is accused of using the presidency as a "personal payday," pocketing an estimated $160 million from foreign countries and charging the Secret Service over $1 million to stay at his properties. The administration is noted for unusually close ties between public office and private business, including licensing deals with foreign governments like Vietnam and Saudi Arabia while in office.

5

Anonymous #3 8h

FINALLY SOMONE WHO HAS A GENUINE ARGUMENT AND INTELLIGENT INFO. Sir/maam I applaud you and have little to no argument for you as i agree with you. My whole argument in this was people mistake opinion with fact.

0

Anonymous #3 8h

Under his first term, the national debt increased by roughly 40%, more than any other single four-year term in history. presided over a net loss of 2.9 million American jobs by the end of his first term, the worst recorded jobs numbers of any U.S. president. He caused the longest government shutdown in U.S. history (35 days) over funding for his border wall.

2

Anonymous #9 8h

Thank you. I wish I could have sent one message bc it’s annoying to send like 5

1

Anonymous #9 8h

You don't get credit in an argument for putting up a bad statement and then it taking a while for someone being bored enough to simply copy and paste an article into Yikyak for you. Ever considered that maybe other people had already read said article/knew the idea it said, and you were the one who was misinformed, putting out a bad argument, and then wondering why people were downvoting you?

7

Anonymous #3 8h

No, thank you for actually being an intellectual. The person prior couldnt understand the fact that they were saying opinionated stuff rather then factual information. You clearly understand the difference between the two so i have no debate with you.

-2

Anonymous OP 8h

What are you even saying?😭

-1

Anonymous OP 8h

Yeah most of that stuff has already been said..I just rearranged it and gave the ‘why they are worse’ in a few parts

8

Anonymous #9 8h

I gave you a direct quantum of corruptly used money as a comparandum. If that read as an "opinion" to you.... oof

7

Anonymous #9 8h

Yeah im starting to think the reason you're confused here is you're just not very good at reading king 😕

5

Anonymous #9 8h

Going to do you a favor and tap you out of a conversation that's clearly above your pay grade

5

Anonymous OP 8h

I actually never even saw your original comment. If you scroll up i never even replied to you hence why i was confused that you replied to me. I think youre the one whos bad at reading here.

0

Anonymous #9 8h

You directly replied to and engaged with me on another comment like 10 minutes ago. Real lack of object permanence here. Enjoy the nice day outside

9

Anonymous OP 8h

They’re not worth the time. No need to stress over a person who has just been given numerous factual reasons why Trump is worst out of all and still supports him. Go enjoy the day

4

Anonymous #5 6h

This administration is on bed with the heads of the largest tech corporations in the country, and you're trusting Google AI to tell the truth here? (That you should ever, as AI should not be independently relied on as a valid source)

1

Anonymous #39 6h

Ahh yes because the websites it sited that I proceeded to check are non existent according to you

1