Trump poised to violate Constitution his first day in office, George W. Bush’s ethics lawyer says

[owebo]

u got a big imagination for a child

u got a big mouth for a turd.

can I take a giant shit on u ??

Do all of you Trump voting deplorables have a scat fetish? Gross.

you're the one with a basket full a cocksucking faggots

So Hillary was calling racists and bigots deplorable... who are you calling deplorable and why?

You racist bigots.....how's your democrat klan meeting going?

 

[jc456]

So Hillary was calling racists and bigots deplorable... who are you calling deplorable and why?

Partially correct and, according to 64% of American voters, unfair in categorizing half of Trump supporters as being prejudicial against women or minorities. Factor in that 60% of voters believe Hillary is untrustworthy and it seems her comments are not truthful.

Labeling someone "racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamaphobic -- you name it. " doesn't make them that way. I'm against bring 60,000+ Syrian refugees (immigrants, in reality) to the US, but I fully support fixing why they are refugees and helping them until they can go home. Does that make me "racist"? "Islamophobic"?

I'm against Affirmative Action since, IMO, it is institutionalized racism. Does that make me "racist"?

Although I understand the plight of transgenders and bathrooms, I'm not comfortable with a transgender "woman" like Caitlyn Jenner using the little girls room at the school play or PTA meeting. Does that make me "homophobic"?

Clinton and Trump in virtual dead heat before first debate - The Washington Post
Q: Do you think it's fair or unfair to describe a large portion of Trump's supporters as prejudiced against women and minorities?
Fair 30%
Unfair 64%

Q: Do you think Hillary Clinton is honest and trustworthy, or not?
Yes 36%
No 60%

I was disappointed with both candidates but I was extremely disappointed by the classless and dishonest campaigns that both sides ran. To address your questions....

I believe Clinton was speaking to people that truly hate or feel superior to minorities, women, LGBT, and immigrants. There is no denying that people like this still exist in America, many were attracted to Trumps campaign, and these people truly are deplorable. Saying it was half his supporters was a mistake which she apologized for the next day.

Per your examples, I don't think any of them makes you a bigot.... you have every right to those views and though I do not agree with you I respect your right to hold those views and would hope that we could have an intelligent debate about why we feel the way we do. I see the root to your arguments being a focus on safety and protecting yourself and your community, this is a fair argument.. you did not reflect hate or targeted discrimination towards these groups... some people do have hate and want to excluded these groups because of this hate, these people are the deplorables.

dude really? You believe that shit. wow. Why are you ok with grown men in a bathroom with little girls. See I don't get that. I respect the rights of the child more than I respect the right of someone who wishes to dress up in the other genders clothes.

Illegal is illegal. What is it you believe is meant by illegal?

vetting, the FBI stated vetting was necessary to Obummer. What's wrong with taking direction from those we put in position to tell us that? I don't see at all where there is hate except from the left. Please post up anything you feel is accurate and factual other than hearsay and bullshit.

It's not heresay at all, this board is a great example, I've had many conversations with proud blatant racists, sexists, and bigots. That's not me calling them names, they own it with pride. They express all the old school supremists views and truly want a white male dominated society again... its very sad. And trust me, none of them were Hillary supporters. Then you see the KKK, the alt-right, and other extreme nationalist groups, all promoting and rallying for Trump, so I don't see how you can deny that this exists. You either don't think these view points are deplorable or you are ignoring/excusing their existance... either way it doesn't make you look good.

The trans situation is a longer discussion and is not as simple as allowing men into the bathroom with little girls. Of course i don't support that. But there is a situation going on where it's the transgenders that are struggling so I'm open to hearing the arguments with an open mind and finding the best solution. As of now I don't see bathroom regulation being a necessary thing for our government to get involved with.

I don't know what you are talking about with the "illegal" question

dude, I have no knowledge of anything you say exists. It exists in your mind, I'll agree with that.

kkk is democrates, you know this right? Alt right your terminology, I have no idea what that is,what other extreme nationalists groups?

Illegal, as immigration. What is it you don't understand about illegal?

What's the population of transgender people as far as a percentage of the country?

 

[EverCurious]

RE OP: Donald Trump to turn over business empire to his children

 

[Slade3200]

I was disappointed with both candidates but I was extremely disappointed by the classless and dishonest campaigns that both sides ran. To address your questions....

I believe Clinton was speaking to people that truly hate or feel superior to minorities, women, LGBT, and immigrants. There is no denying that people like this still exist in America, many were attracted to Trumps campaign, and these people truly are deplorable. Saying it was half his supporters was a mistake which she apologized for the next day.

Per your examples, I don't think any of them makes you a bigot.... you have every right to those views and though I do not agree with you I respect your right to hold those views and would hope that we could have an intelligent debate about why we feel the way we do. I see the root to your arguments being a focus on safety and protecting yourself and your community, this is a fair argument.. you did not reflect hate or targeted discrimination towards these groups... some people do have hate and want to excluded these groups because of this hate, these people are the deplorables.

We are agreed about "classless and dishonest campaigns", although I think you are soft-pedalling Hillary's "deplorable" remarks. Like Trump, she was slinging shit to get a reaction. In her case it was a lot of backlash causing her to profess apologizing, although I doubt her sincerity. For that matter I doubt the sincerity of most politicians who apologize only in the face of public recrimination and not before.

You are obviously correct that there are true haters out there, but it's become very common over the past several years to label anyone who disagrees with Liberal causes as "racists", "bigots", etc. thereby artificially inflating the numbers of true assholes to label all of those right of center. Heck, some here label anyone right of far left as being "cons", "racists", et.

Human beings need to eat and use the bathroom. Regardless of orientation, letting a grown man using the little girls room isn't an optimal solution. Obviously making them use the little boys room isn't either. Another solution must be found.

I agree with all your points. I think Hillary was trying to belittle Trump and his supporters, she made a controversial statement and it blew up in her face. That stuff was working for Trump but not for her, she never should have tried it.

And yes the race card gets played way too much. I understand the frustrations of wanting to make a fair argument to somebody on the left and instead of getting consideration you get called a bigot.

The tone on both sides has degraded and seems to only fuel the divide. My hope is that people from both sides can start to change their tone. Your point will be heard much better if you can acknowledge validity and display understanding of your opposers counter argument. Instead of doing this, the current trend in the mainstream seems to be demonization by contorting lies and misrepresenting opposers arguments. This is extremely unproductive

 

[JimH52]

Maybe this is how the GOP Congress will eventually Impeach Trump? They really want Pence in the White House to roll back "Progressive" initiatives, some of which were overreach by the Obama administration. Unless Trump separates himself from his worldwide business ventures, he could be on the impeach trail.

 

[blackhawk]

Attention CDC Trump Derangement Syndrome is spreading at an alarming rate.

 

[jc456]

I was disappointed with both candidates but I was extremely disappointed by the classless and dishonest campaigns that both sides ran. To address your questions....

I believe Clinton was speaking to people that truly hate or feel superior to minorities, women, LGBT, and immigrants. There is no denying that people like this still exist in America, many were attracted to Trumps campaign, and these people truly are deplorable. Saying it was half his supporters was a mistake which she apologized for the next day.

Per your examples, I don't think any of them makes you a bigot.... you have every right to those views and though I do not agree with you I respect your right to hold those views and would hope that we could have an intelligent debate about why we feel the way we do. I see the root to your arguments being a focus on safety and protecting yourself and your community, this is a fair argument.. you did not reflect hate or targeted discrimination towards these groups... some people do have hate and want to excluded these groups because of this hate, these people are the deplorables.

We are agreed about "classless and dishonest campaigns", although I think you are soft-pedalling Hillary's "deplorable" remarks. Like Trump, she was slinging shit to get a reaction. In her case it was a lot of backlash causing her to profess apologizing, although I doubt her sincerity. For that matter I doubt the sincerity of most politicians who apologize only in the face of public recrimination and not before.

You are obviously correct that there are true haters out there, but it's become very common over the past several years to label anyone who disagrees with Liberal causes as "racists", "bigots", etc. thereby artificially inflating the numbers of true assholes to label all of those right of center. Heck, some here label anyone right of far left as being "cons", "racists", et.

Human beings need to eat and use the bathroom. Regardless of orientation, letting a grown man using the little girls room isn't an optimal solution. Obviously making them use the little boys room isn't either. Another solution must be found.

I agree with all your points. I think Hillary was trying to belittle Trump and his supporters, she made a controversial statement and it blew up in her face. That stuff was working for Trump but not for her, she never should have tried it.

And yes the race card gets played way too much. I understand the frustrations of wanting to make a fair argument to somebody on the left and instead of getting consideration you get called a bigot.

The tone on both sides has degraded and seems to only fuel the divide. My hope is that people from both sides can start to change their tone. Your point will be heard much better if you can acknowledge validity and display understanding of your opposers counter argument. Instead of doing this, the current trend in the mainstream seems to be demonization by contorting lies and misrepresenting opposers arguments. This is extremely unproductive

that's virtually impossible from the left's point of view. Just look at BLM there are no black lives matter, the inner cities still exist and the left has no plans to change the status of black lives. Look at what party runs cities with inner city problems. You have to be a nutjob to think that a libturd cares at all for minority people. I will challenge that until the end of my time.

 

[jc456]

Attention CDC Trump Derangement Syndrome is spreading at an alarming rate.

it's called TARD (Trump Acceptance Resistance Disorder)

 

[Divine Wind]

RE OP: Donald Trump to turn over business empire to his children

My guess is this will be Trump's "Benghazi" or "Whitewater". While what he plans on doing is legal, any sense or appearance of impropriety will see the Democrats raising a shitstorm and proposing investigative committees. If the Republicans don't comply, they'll get their asses kicked in 2018, risking losing the Senate, and possibly 2020.

The best thing Trump could do for the office of the Presidency and the RNC is to completely divest himself of his businesses for his entire term.

 

[Slade3200]

So Hillary was calling racists and bigots deplorable... who are you calling deplorable and why?

Partially correct and, according to 64% of American voters, unfair in categorizing half of Trump supporters as being prejudicial against women or minorities. Factor in that 60% of voters believe Hillary is untrustworthy and it seems her comments are not truthful.

Labeling someone "racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamaphobic -- you name it. " doesn't make them that way. I'm against bring 60,000+ Syrian refugees (immigrants, in reality) to the US, but I fully support fixing why they are refugees and helping them until they can go home. Does that make me "racist"? "Islamophobic"?

I'm against Affirmative Action since, IMO, it is institutionalized racism. Does that make me "racist"?

Although I understand the plight of transgenders and bathrooms, I'm not comfortable with a transgender "woman" like Caitlyn Jenner using the little girls room at the school play or PTA meeting. Does that make me "homophobic"?

Clinton and Trump in virtual dead heat before first debate - The Washington Post
Q: Do you think it's fair or unfair to describe a large portion of Trump's supporters as prejudiced against women and minorities?
Fair 30%
Unfair 64%

Q: Do you think Hillary Clinton is honest and trustworthy, or not?
Yes 36%
No 60%

I was disappointed with both candidates but I was extremely disappointed by the classless and dishonest campaigns that both sides ran. To address your questions....

I believe Clinton was speaking to people that truly hate or feel superior to minorities, women, LGBT, and immigrants. There is no denying that people like this still exist in America, many were attracted to Trumps campaign, and these people truly are deplorable. Saying it was half his supporters was a mistake which she apologized for the next day.

Per your examples, I don't think any of them makes you a bigot.... you have every right to those views and though I do not agree with you I respect your right to hold those views and would hope that we could have an intelligent debate about why we feel the way we do. I see the root to your arguments being a focus on safety and protecting yourself and your community, this is a fair argument.. you did not reflect hate or targeted discrimination towards these groups... some people do have hate and want to excluded these groups because of this hate, these people are the deplorables.

dude really? You believe that shit. wow. Why are you ok with grown men in a bathroom with little girls. See I don't get that. I respect the rights of the child more than I respect the right of someone who wishes to dress up in the other genders clothes.

Illegal is illegal. What is it you believe is meant by illegal?

vetting, the FBI stated vetting was necessary to Obummer. What's wrong with taking direction from those we put in position to tell us that? I don't see at all where there is hate except from the left. Please post up anything you feel is accurate and factual other than hearsay and bullshit.

It's not heresay at all, this board is a great example, I've had many conversations with proud blatant racists, sexists, and bigots. That's not me calling them names, they own it with pride. They express all the old school supremists views and truly want a white male dominated society again... its very sad. And trust me, none of them were Hillary supporters. Then you see the KKK, the alt-right, and other extreme nationalist groups, all promoting and rallying for Trump, so I don't see how you can deny that this exists. You either don't think these view points are deplorable or you are ignoring/excusing their existance... either way it doesn't make you look good.

The trans situation is a longer discussion and is not as simple as allowing men into the bathroom with little girls. Of course i don't support that. But there is a situation going on where it's the transgenders that are struggling so I'm open to hearing the arguments with an open mind and finding the best solution. As of now I don't see bathroom regulation being a necessary thing for our government to get involved with.

I don't know what you are talking about with the "illegal" question

dude, I have no knowledge of anything you say exists. It exists in your mind, I'll agree with that.

kkk is democrates, you know this right? Alt right your terminology, I have no idea what that is,what other extreme nationalists groups?

Illegal, as immigration. What is it you don't understand about illegal?

What's the population of transgender people as far as a percentage of the country?

If you don't see it then open your eyes. We aren't talking about Republicans or Democrats, we are talking about people like David Duke who support Trump. How do you deny it?

You ever drive 60 in a 55? Jaywalk? Take a shortcut through private property? Should we call you an illegal? Just because somebody does something illegal doesn't make them "illegal" it is a dehumanizing term that has evolved from a legal description to a demeaning insult. Some people like to insult because it makes them feel tough and macho but it's not necessary in a civilized society. We can do better than that

 

[deltex1]

Now, this is interesting.

In an exclusive exchange with ThinkProgress, Richard Painter, a University of Minnesota law professor who previously served as chief ethics counsel to President George W. Bush, says that Trump’s efforts to do business with these diplomats is at odds with a provision of the Constitution intended to prevent foreign states from effectively buying influence with federal officials.

The Constitution’s “Emoluments Clause,” provides that “no person holding any office of profit or trust under” the United States “shall, without the consent of the Congress, accept of any present, emolument, office, or title, of any kind whatever, from any king, prince, or foreign state.”

The diplomats’ efforts in seek Trump’s favor by staying in his hotel “looks like a gift,” Painter told ThinkProgress in an email, and thus is the very kind of favor the Constitution seeks to prevent.

To explain, the ordinary rule under the Emoluments Clause is that federal officials may do business with foreign governments so long as they do not receive special treatment. If the president owns a $200,000 Rolls Royce, Painter told ThinkProgress, they can sell that car to the Queen of England, so long as they only receive its fair market value. If Her Majesty The Queen pays $250,000 for the Rolls Royce, however, that would violate the Emoluments Clause.

Rest of article here:
https://thinkprogress.org/trump-poi...hs-ethics-lawyer-says-73e14789a935#.91zyk7w2i

Trump is in SERIOUS legal trouble.

SYTFEGFY......YOU MAKE ME GUFFAW, DUDE...GOOD FOR YOU!

 

[Slade3200]

I was disappointed with both candidates but I was extremely disappointed by the classless and dishonest campaigns that both sides ran. To address your questions....

I believe Clinton was speaking to people that truly hate or feel superior to minorities, women, LGBT, and immigrants. There is no denying that people like this still exist in America, many were attracted to Trumps campaign, and these people truly are deplorable. Saying it was half his supporters was a mistake which she apologized for the next day.

Per your examples, I don't think any of them makes you a bigot.... you have every right to those views and though I do not agree with you I respect your right to hold those views and would hope that we could have an intelligent debate about why we feel the way we do. I see the root to your arguments being a focus on safety and protecting yourself and your community, this is a fair argument.. you did not reflect hate or targeted discrimination towards these groups... some people do have hate and want to excluded these groups because of this hate, these people are the deplorables.

We are agreed about "classless and dishonest campaigns", although I think you are soft-pedalling Hillary's "deplorable" remarks. Like Trump, she was slinging shit to get a reaction. In her case it was a lot of backlash causing her to profess apologizing, although I doubt her sincerity. For that matter I doubt the sincerity of most politicians who apologize only in the face of public recrimination and not before.

You are obviously correct that there are true haters out there, but it's become very common over the past several years to label anyone who disagrees with Liberal causes as "racists", "bigots", etc. thereby artificially inflating the numbers of true assholes to label all of those right of center. Heck, some here label anyone right of far left as being "cons", "racists", et.

Human beings need to eat and use the bathroom. Regardless of orientation, letting a grown man using the little girls room isn't an optimal solution. Obviously making them use the little boys room isn't either. Another solution must be found.

I agree with all your points. I think Hillary was trying to belittle Trump and his supporters, she made a controversial statement and it blew up in her face. That stuff was working for Trump but not for her, she never should have tried it.

And yes the race card gets played way too much. I understand the frustrations of wanting to make a fair argument to somebody on the left and instead of getting consideration you get called a bigot.

The tone on both sides has degraded and seems to only fuel the divide. My hope is that people from both sides can start to change their tone. Your point will be heard much better if you can acknowledge validity and display understanding of your opposers counter argument. Instead of doing this, the current trend in the mainstream seems to be demonization by contorting lies and misrepresenting opposers arguments. This is extremely unproductive

that's virtually impossible from the left's point of view. Just look at BLM there are no black lives matter, the inner cities still exist and the left has no plans to change the status of black lives. Look at what party runs cities with inner city problems. You have to be a nutjob to think that a libturd cares at all for minority people. I will challenge that until the end of my time.

You are too close minded and partisan to be taken seriously in an argument. You can't make a valid point without lining it with anti liberal BS, all that does is drown out any validity, respect, or consideration that your opposers or even the objected minded would give to your arguments

 

[Slade3200]

Attention CDC Trump Derangement Syndrome is spreading at an alarming rate.

it's called TARD (Trump Acceptance Resistance Disorder)

I haven't heard of that one... I only know about TRUTHS... Trump Rectally Urinates Towards His Supporters... it's coming soon

 

[PK1]

Now, this is interesting.

In an exclusive exchange with ThinkProgress, Richard Painter, a University of Minnesota law professor who previously served as chief ethics counsel to President George W. Bush, says that Trump’s efforts to do business with these diplomats is at odds with a provision of the Constitution intended to prevent foreign states from effectively buying influence with federal officials.

The Constitution’s “Emoluments Clause,” provides that “no person holding any office of profit or trust under” the United States “shall, without the consent of the Congress, accept of any present, emolument, office, or title, of any kind whatever, from any king, prince, or foreign state.”

The diplomats’ efforts in seek Trump’s favor by staying in his hotel “looks like a gift,” Painter told ThinkProgress in an email, and thus is the very kind of favor the Constitution seeks to prevent.

To explain, the ordinary rule under the Emoluments Clause is that federal officials may do business with foreign governments so long as they do not receive special treatment. If the president owns a $200,000 Rolls Royce, Painter told ThinkProgress, they can sell that car to the Queen of England, so long as they only receive its fair market value. If Her Majesty The Queen pays $250,000 for the Rolls Royce, however, that would violate the Emoluments Clause.

Rest of article here:
https://thinkprogress.org/trump-poi...hs-ethics-lawyer-says-73e14789a935#.91zyk7w2i

Trump is in SERIOUS legal trouble.

Sure he is snowflake, sure he is.......

Don't take my word for it, take the lawyers word.

You seem to be preoccupied with babies & young kids.
Is that your preferred level of communication?
I hope that does not reflect on your politics ... about adult issues.

 

[jc456]

Now, this is interesting.

In an exclusive exchange with ThinkProgress, Richard Painter, a University of Minnesota law professor who previously served as chief ethics counsel to President George W. Bush, says that Trump’s efforts to do business with these diplomats is at odds with a provision of the Constitution intended to prevent foreign states from effectively buying influence with federal officials.

The Constitution’s “Emoluments Clause,” provides that “no person holding any office of profit or trust under” the United States “shall, without the consent of the Congress, accept of any present, emolument, office, or title, of any kind whatever, from any king, prince, or foreign state.”

The diplomats’ efforts in seek Trump’s favor by staying in his hotel “looks like a gift,” Painter told ThinkProgress in an email, and thus is the very kind of favor the Constitution seeks to prevent.

To explain, the ordinary rule under the Emoluments Clause is that federal officials may do business with foreign governments so long as they do not receive special treatment. If the president owns a $200,000 Rolls Royce, Painter told ThinkProgress, they can sell that car to the Queen of England, so long as they only receive its fair market value. If Her Majesty The Queen pays $250,000 for the Rolls Royce, however, that would violate the Emoluments Clause.

Rest of article here:
https://thinkprogress.org/trump-poi...hs-ethics-lawyer-says-73e14789a935#.91zyk7w2i

Trump is in SERIOUS legal trouble.

Sure he is snowflake, sure he is.......

Don't take my word for it, take the lawyers word.

You seem to be preoccupied with babies & young kids.
Is that your preferred level of communication?
I hope that does not reflect on your politics ... about adult issues.

It is who we're dealing with so getting to their level to understand what libturds think is nerve racking. So, the photos are the libturds crying about losing like babies do. So where is it he's wrong?

 

[Slade3200]

Now, this is interesting.
Rest of article here:
https://thinkprogress.org/trump-poi...hs-ethics-lawyer-says-73e14789a935#.91zyk7w2i

Trump is in SERIOUS legal trouble.

Sure he is snowflake, sure he is.......

Don't take my word for it, take the lawyers word.

You seem to be preoccupied with babies & young kids.
Is that your preferred level of communication?
I hope that does not reflect on your politics ... about adult issues.

It is who we're dealing with so getting to their level to understand what libturds think is nerve racking. So, the photos are the libturds crying about losing like babies do. So where is it he's wrong?

How about instead of responding to fear and protest with name calling and baby pictures, which is childish on your part, you man up and address the concerns of protesters with intelligent arguements as to how Trumps policies will actually help them. Be a relatable person who supports Trump but can also articulate arguements while showing understanding and compassion for your opposition. Instead of acting like an intellectually retarded partisan bully who is only trying to fuel the divide... you know that shit only validates your opposers concerns

 

[Divine Wind]

....The tone on both sides has degraded and seems to only fuel the divide. My hope is that people from both sides can start to change their tone. Your point will be heard much better if you can acknowledge validity and display understanding of your opposers counter argument. Instead of doing this, the current trend in the mainstream seems to be demonization by contorting lies and misrepresenting opposers arguments. This is extremely unproductive

Agreed about tone and division.

History shows that social leanings tend to pendulum back and forth to extremes. Like a pendulum, I think these swings (which often take decades) tend to center, we're still a ways from that as the recent election shows. Still, despite all the animosity and political bullshit, we're a long ways from the 1960s much less the days of Hearst's "Yellow Journalism".

Another factor to consider, and one human society is still becoming accustomed, is the Internet. We're living in Alvin Toffler's prediction of "Information Overload". To compensate, many people are self-segregating themselves into self-reinforcing niches with Liberals watching MSNBC, Conservatives watching Fox News and neither willing to accept much beyond the points of view being fed to them.

 

[PK1]

Now, this is interesting.
Rest of article here:
https://thinkprogress.org/trump-poi...hs-ethics-lawyer-says-73e14789a935#.91zyk7w2i

Trump is in SERIOUS legal trouble.

Sure he is snowflake, sure he is.......

Don't take my word for it, take the lawyers word.

You seem to be preoccupied with babies & young kids.
Is that your preferred level of communication?
I hope that does not reflect on your politics ... about adult issues.

It is who we're dealing with so getting to their level to understand what libturds think is nerve racking. So, the photos are the libturds crying about losing like babies do. So where is it he's wrong?

You think profiling individuals into a group, rather than focusing on their specific comments, and then using infantile expressions like "libturds" to reference a group ... a mature contribution to a discussion?
Do you call yourself a "conturd"?

 

[Divine Wind]

If you don't see it then open your eyes. We aren't talking about Republicans or Democrats, we are talking about people like David Duke who support Trump. How do you deny it?...

I don't deny that. Do you deny that Hugo Chavez happily shook President Obama's hand and said "I want to be your friend"? Does that make President Obama a Socialist and/or a Marxist bent on nationalizing our nation's resources and industries? If not, why the double standard?

No doubt, as Hillary did, Trump employed rhetoric and hyperbole to excite potential voters, but, unless you believe Hillary believes everything she said, I fail to see why you believe everything Trump said. Notice how his tone has changed since the election. Not perfect, still odd, but a definite change.

 

[Slade3200]

Sure he is snowflake, sure he is.......

Don't take my word for it, take the lawyers word.

You seem to be preoccupied with babies & young kids.
Is that your preferred level of communication?
I hope that does not reflect on your politics ... about adult issues.

It is who we're dealing with so getting to their level to understand what libturds think is nerve racking. So, the photos are the libturds crying about losing like babies do. So where is it he's wrong?

You think profiling individuals into a group, rather than focusing on their specific comments, and then using infantile expressions like "libturds" to reference a group ... a mature contribution to a discussion?
Do you call yourself a "conturd"?

I believe the term would be "conservaturd"