BREAKING Special prosecutor named to investigate Jussie Smollett charges and why they were dropped

a reply to: jhn7537

a reply to: jhn7537

And this idiot thought he'd be the first gay First Lady if Cory Booker got elected. Talk about dumb and dumber.

Of all instances to call out as not racist, where on earth gave you been to call out the entirety of the Democratic Party for... idk the past 6 years or so???? Call out beto, Kamala, Bernie, booker, the squad, Obama... CNN, MSNBC it goes on they've been crying racism like free donut day at Dunkn.


Forgive me but smollets actions to create a fake racial outrage and add fuel to the fire which is burning American civility are motivated to hurt all of America based on furthering racial divides. That's racism, a systematic suppression of race (and it affects all of us), and you being a smollet apologies doesn't change that. What an intellectually dishonest perspective.


a reply to: JustJohnny

White supremacy is a scientific fact, but Mexican supremacy had never been a scientific fact?

What exactly makes something "scientific fact".

At first I thought you were intellectually dishonest, but there's nothing intellectual about the words you are typing.



a reply to: JustJohnny

a reply to: jhn7537

I guess that is the death knell for the Harris 2020 campaign then.

Jussie Smollets intials were prophetic

he is Jack Sh!t now.

Just for the super strong Subway sammich, I'm NOT boycotting Subway


their subs save lives.

originally posted by: TerryMcGuire
a reply to: UKTruth
I just re-read what you read from my post and failed to see how you draw the conclusion you have. You seem to have inverted my posting to come up with the conclusion that I have no credibility. If you wish you could make an attempt to explain more completely and specifically how you arrived at that but you would probably be wasting your time and mine as well so I see no reason to continue with this

Pretty simple.
My question/challenge back to you was clear:

and I assume you will accept the findings if they reach beyond the State Attorney and up to Kamala Harris and Barrack Obama.

To which you replied:

You ''assume'' incorrectly.

Thanks.

originally posted by: JustJohnny
a reply to: jhn7537

What is your definition of racism???


What dictionary did you get it from???


I am positive that falsely accusing someone of being a racist, is not listed as a definition for racism ANYWHERE..


Well except Fox News types lol..


You know those constantly convinced the dictionary is lying to them..

So you’re saying that 100% President Trump is NOT a racist?

I agree

So does the VAST MAJORITY of the world

a reply to: UKTruth
OK Truth. I did say you assume incorrectly. However did read you read the rest of that paragraph? I was, as I often have to do around here, saying that just because I do not approve of Trump that that opposition means that I like the Democrats.

Here, just a little bit farther in that post as this

I'm eagerly awaiting all the hoop and holler that is expected to take all those Democrats down. I'm waiting and if it comes to it I will be happy to accept it.

With very few exceptions I have always been disappointed with those who rise to positions of political power in the Democrat Party. Even some that I have admired have proven to be false liberals, that is liberals by the definition that I have held to. This is why I was a registered R for most of my life. To me, Ron Paul was in many many ways a better liberal then many who hold the D. This is why I always voted for him in primary cycles. I changed my R to D in this last election to vote against Clinton. Had Trump not been the R nominee I would have, as I have for most of my voting experience, voted third party.

So cleaning out the Democrat Party would be a plus in my estimation.

edit, Oh yeah, Thanks back to you for helping me to explain my earlier post in with more precision.

He needs to take responsibility for his lies...

I hope to see heads roll for this 1

a reply to: FamCore

Has there ever been a society that was above people lying for fame and fortune?!?!

Nope

a reply to: Bloodworth

So for married people everywhere, should trump take responsibility for the Stormy Daniels debacle??


So if Smollett should hold up for his actions and take responsibility, shouldn’t trump a well?!?!


Paying to Bang a nasty pornstar whileyour wife is 9 months pregnant, is arguably as low as faking a hate crime to increase your salary..

Quite a few wives might say it is lower..

originally posted by: JustJohnny
a reply to: Bloodworth

So for married people everywhere, should trump take responsibility for the Stormy Daniels debacle??


So if Smollett should hold up for his actions and take responsibility, shouldn’t trump a well?!?!


Paying to Bang a nasty pornstar whileyour wife is 9 months pregnant, is arguably as low as faking a hate crime to increase your salary..

Quite a few wives might say it is lower..

Um, one is a crime, the other is not.

It’s illegal to ‘fake a hate crime’

And if you expect people to be shocked that a billionaire business tycoon pounds hookers while his wife is pregnant, bad luck. That kind of behaviour is expected.

Especially since it was like TEN FCUCKEN YEARS AGO.

Everybody knew he was a high rolling pimp hustler player when they voted for him.
It was kinda the point.

As for smollet, he’s just some racist criminal low-rent wannabe actor. And those who decided not to charge him with his crime are being ‘looked at’ for doing just that.

The one thing Jussie was right about though, this IS maga country.

originally posted by: JustJohnny
a reply to: Bloodworth

So for married people everywhere, should trump take responsibility for the Stormy Daniels debacle??


So if Smollett should hold up for his actions and take responsibility, shouldn’t trump a well?!?!


Paying to Bang a nasty pornstar whileyour wife is 9 months pregnant, is arguably as low as faking a hate crime to increase your salary..

Quite a few wives might say it is lower..

How much police time and money went into his fake hate crime story?

Trump banging stormy??
What does that have to do with anything?

a reply to: Rob808

The democrat party is not a race...


Obviously...


Racism has a definition already...


You do not get to redefine words because it helps you make fake political points...


American conservatives have race baited for all of American history, the thing is that when you are race baiting the majority of the population it is no longer considered race baiting... then it is just politics..


And I do not means some dog whistle innuendo previous to the last 40 years, they didn’t have to use innuendo.. they could just flat out say it.

a reply to: JustJohnny

Why not, Democrats redefined racism to make it so black people could not be racist by including a power dynamic and defining that dynamic in such a way so that if a black person has a gun to my head he still has no power over me.

a reply to: JustJohnny

You do not get to redefine words because it helps you make fake political points..

Bold words for a guy/gal who makes some pretty strong statements dressed up as facts and then refuses to defend them.

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: JustJohnny

Why not, Democrats redefined racism to make it so black people could not be racist by including a power dynamic and defining that dynamic in such a way so that if a black person has a gun to my head he still has no power over me.

Heck, most modern black leaders seem to define "racist" as being any statement they do not agree with. It's just a bullying tactic now.

a reply to: AndyFromMichigan

I mean the definition taught by liberals. So not just fake news propaganda, but what schools are actually teaching.

Actual definition.

racism noun
rac·​ism | ˈrā-ˌsi-zəm also -ˌshi-
Definition of racism
1 : a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race

The definition liberals use includes prejudice and institutional power. Therefore since he does not have institutional power, a black man who attacks me because he hates white people and I am white, and is holding a gun to my head, is not racist because he has no power over me in that definition.

It's what Salem State University in MA teaches, and has for about 20 years.

originally posted by: JustJohnny
a reply to: Bloodworth

So for married people everywhere, should trump take responsibility for the Stormy Daniels debacle??


So if Smollett should hold up for his actions and take responsibility, shouldn’t trump a well?!?!


Paying to Bang a nasty pornstar whileyour wife is 9 months pregnant, is arguably as low as faking a hate crime to increase your salary..

Quite a few wives might say it is lower..

You seem to be ignoring the fact that both Trump and Daniels deny that they ever had sex. But for the sake of argument, let’s say that they did (wouldn’t surprise me one bit). That’s between The Donald, his wife, and the porn skank.

Jussie, on the other hand, lied to law enforcement, filed false reports, then doubled down on the whole thing. The fact that homeboy implicated a large part of the population with the BS MAGA country storyline makes what he did far worse. I realize that the official story is that he did it to somehow get a salary increase, but I find it suuuuper odd and coincidental that the incident occurred right in time for that ridiculous “anti-lynching” legislation, brought to you by people he has ties to.

Coincidence? Could be...but probably not.

What he did could have led to real problems for people with zero involvement around the nation. IF Trump banged the porn skank (weak stuff, and #ty to do with a wife at home, but ultimately none of my business), the worst thing that could have happened is maybe some of his spray tan rubbed off on the sheets and he walked out needing a shot of penicillin.

Trump doesn’t owe anyone except Melania an apology for any extramarital activities. Jussie can keep his apologies. Not that he’s ever going to admit any wrong doing...