Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Trump Says He Would Use Information From Foreign Governments...

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #76
    Originally posted by Massena View Post
    I saw the interview it was quite clear what Trump was saying. He is advocating breaking federal law.
    I am sure that anything Trump said would be wrong as far as you are concerned. In fact I know it would since you once agreed with Trump and still said he was wrong.
    Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it whether it exists or not, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedy. -- Ernest Benn

    Comment


    • #77
      Really?

      So you agree with his illegal stance on foreign support for American elections?

      We are not now that strength which in old days
      Moved earth and heaven; that which we are we are; One equal temper of heroic hearts
      Made weak by time and fate but strong in will
      To strive to seek to find and not to yield.

      Comment


      • #78
        Trump's ignorance or just plain ignoring the Constitution is dangerous for the country:

        https://www.cnn.com/2019/06/13/opini...lon/index.html
        'President Trump's invitation to foreign powers to interfere in American elections is the Founding Fathers' worst nightmare.'
        'And every conservative congressman who's ever called themselves an "originalist" ought to quickly condemn it or be forever labeled a hyperpartisan hack and a hypocrite.'

        'This isn't a tough call. The Founding Fathers were obsessed with foreign nations interfering with our elections and influencing our domestic debates. And it wasn't a naive or paranoid concern -- it was rooted in their understanding of how democratic republics had been undermined throughout history.'

        I wonder if Trump would consider the Watergate break-in as nothing more than 'opposition research'?
        We are not now that strength which in old days
        Moved earth and heaven; that which we are we are; One equal temper of heroic hearts
        Made weak by time and fate but strong in will
        To strive to seek to find and not to yield.

        Comment


        • #79
          Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post

          Or, least we forget, how Hillary and Bill were pulling off "Chinagate" back when he was in office...

          https://www.independentsentinel.com/...-gate-scandal/

          https://www.judicialwatch.org/cases/chinagate/

          https://spectator.org/chinagate-and-the-Clintons/

          The Clintons are easily the most brazen consumers of foreign influence buying in American politics in history... They've taken tens, possibly hundreds, of millions in foreign money for quid pro quo.
          One has to be charged with a crime though first and then plead guilty as Cohen and other Trump supporters have.

          We hear about Americans on one side or the other saying jail Trump or jail Clinton. H Clinton and Trump are not criminals. If one does not trust in the US justice system thats on them. Its sort of like actually believing that if your a certain color in the USA today, white or black...that your being held back by our system...those are not real things its the kind of stuff that only exists in ones imagination. Soon as H Clinton gets charged with a crime Ill be the first to agree with your anti Clinton stance. But in fact Americans love H Clinton, she won more American votes as the strong female leader she is, compared to Trump. So many white American men of the North and South were huge H Clinton fans, Im surprised you and all the other guys here at ACG that are anti Clinton, are not instead pro Clinton. What we see here on ACG wrt the anti Clinton views mostly they come from the white male Trump supporters ... well I dont think thats indicative of how Americans across the country felt about Clinton.
          Long live the Lionheart! Please watch this video
          https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_c...&v=jRDwlR4zbEM
          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f3DBaY0RsxU
          Accept the challenges so that you can feel the exhilaration of victory.

          George S Patton

          Comment


          • #80
            And so many white Germans of Hamburg and Bavaria were huge A Hitler fans .

            Comment


            • #81
              Originally posted by Massena View Post
              I saw the interview it was quite clear what Trump was saying. He is advocating breaking federal law.
              Massena saw it, but was wearing his DS glasses ( made in NK ) .

              Comment


              • #82
                Originally posted by Massena View Post

                Trump did much more than 'make a mistake.' He is advocating breaking the law and contradicting the Director of the FBI.
                Yes Trump has said a # of controversial things..and one was when Trump said he could shoot someone in Time square and get away with it. Trump also told his supporters to assault protesters at the Trump rallies, even saying he would cover the legal costs. Well apparently that type of language is not binding. Trump knows this, in our country one can say the darnedest things and they wont be charged with a crime.

                Until Trump gets charged, or until Trump gets charged and pleads guilty Im not going to for example call Trump a criminal. At this point I do recognize that Trump is controversial.
                Long live the Lionheart! Please watch this video
                https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_c...&v=jRDwlR4zbEM
                https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f3DBaY0RsxU
                Accept the challenges so that you can feel the exhilaration of victory.

                George S Patton

                Comment


                • #83
                  Originally posted by ljadw View Post

                  There is no law that is saying that it can.t happen twice in a row .
                  You said it, but you are not the law .
                  Which is very good for democracy .
                  It can happen once ( it did it several times), twice,and more .
                  It happened in 1824, in 1876,in 1888,in 2000 in 2916,why should it not happen in 2020 ?
                  And the potus is not elected by the popular votes ( you can become potus with 17 popular votes ) ,but by the electoral votes .
                  Friend I did not say that a POTUS losing the popular vote twice in a row would prevent them from gaining the Presidential office twice...but it would be a major issue IMO...something thats very unfortunate. Let alone the fact that its rare for any POTUS in any election in our history as you point out above, to lose the popular vote as Trump did in 2016.
                  Long live the Lionheart! Please watch this video
                  https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_c...&v=jRDwlR4zbEM
                  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f3DBaY0RsxU
                  Accept the challenges so that you can feel the exhilaration of victory.

                  George S Patton

                  Comment


                  • #84
                    Originally posted by Stonewall_Jack View Post

                    Friend I did not say that a POTUS losing the popular vote twice in a row would prevent them from gaining the Presidential office twice...but it would be a major issue IMO...something thats very unfortunate. Let alone the fact that its rare for any POTUS in any election in our history as you point out above, to lose the popular vote as Trump did in 2016.
                    Why would it be a major issue ? And why would it be very unfortunate ?
                    A potus elected by popular vote would mean the end of the Republican and Democratic parties and the end of the US .And US can only survive if there are not more than 2 big political parties .
                    Other point : as before 1824 most states did not count popular votes,it is possible that in this period there were also presidents who lost the popular vote .
                    As long as the law is saying that a potus is elected by electoral votes, the number of popular votes is irrelevant : one can even become potus with only 17 ( or 13 ? ) popular votes against the loser having 100 million votes .

                    Comment


                    • #85
                      Originally posted by Stonewall_Jack View Post

                      One has to be charged with a crime though first and then plead guilty as Cohen and other Trump supporters have.

                      We hear about Americans on one side or the other saying jail Trump or jail Clinton. H Clinton and Trump are not criminals. If one does not trust in the US justice system thats on them. Its sort of like actually believing that if your a certain color in the USA today, white or black...that your being held back by our system...those are not real things its the kind of stuff that only exists in ones imagination. Soon as H Clinton gets charged with a crime Ill be the first to agree with your anti Clinton stance. But in fact Americans love H Clinton, she won more American votes as the strong female leader she is, compared to Trump. So many white American men of the North and South were huge H Clinton fans, Im surprised you and all the other guys here at ACG that are anti Clinton, are not instead pro Clinton. What we see here on ACG wrt the anti Clinton views mostly they come from the white male Trump supporters ... well I dont think thats indicative of how Americans across the country felt about Clinton.
                      With regard to "Chinagate," a number of people were convicted of serious campaign finance violations.

                      Yah Lin "Charlie" Trie: Charged federally for campaign finance violations but the charges were dropped in favor of ones being pursued by Arkansas and DC. He tried to flee the US to China but ended up returning. Convicted of campaign finance felonies got 3 years probation, 4 months of that in house arrest.

                      Johnny Chung: Donated $336,000 to the DNC and Clintons. All was later "returned." Testified under oath he was working for the Chinese military and government influence buying. S
                      entenced to five years' probation and community service following an agreement to plea guilty to bank fraud, tax evasion, and two misdemeanor counts of conspiring to violate election law.

                      John Huang: Worked for the Indonesian Lippo Bank group. Gave $3.4 million to the DNC and over $1 to the Clintons. Got a position at the Commerce department once Clinton was in office and had access to classified materials. Convicted of campaign finance violations. Worked with James Riady who was at Lippo. The two committed wire fraud and continued to work together to funnel money into Clinton political coffers while he was in office. Huang under oath stated he was working with Chinese intelligence agencies.

                      There are lots more. The Clintons were as dirty as they come and up to their eyeballs in scams and quid pro quo deals for money. Chinagate makes the Mueller report and the whole Russia / Obstruction thing with Trump look like an absolute joke, and the Democrats in the House like the clowns they are.

                      Comment


                      • #86
                        Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post

                        With regard to "Chinagate," a number of people were convicted of serious campaign finance violations.

                        Yah Lin "Charlie" Trie: Charged federally for campaign finance violations but the charges were dropped in favor of ones being pursued by Arkansas and DC. He tried to flee the US to China but ended up returning. Convicted of campaign finance felonies got 3 years probation, 4 months of that in house arrest.

                        Johnny Chung: Donated $336,000 to the DNC and Clintons. All was later "returned." Testified under oath he was working for the Chinese military and government influence buying. S
                        entenced to five years' probation and community service following an agreement to plea guilty to bank fraud, tax evasion, and two misdemeanor counts of conspiring to violate election law.

                        John Huang: Worked for the Indonesian Lippo Bank group. Gave $3.4 million to the DNC and over $1 to the Clintons. Got a position at the Commerce department once Clinton was in office and had access to classified materials. Convicted of campaign finance violations. Worked with James Riady who was at Lippo. The two committed wire fraud and continued to work together to funnel money into Clinton political coffers while he was in office. Huang under oath stated he was working with Chinese intelligence agencies.

                        There are lots more. The Clintons were as dirty as they come and up to their eyeballs in scams and quid pro quo deals for money. Chinagate makes the Mueller report and the whole Russia / Obstruction thing with Trump look like an absolute joke, and the Democrats in the House like the clowns they are.


                        Well said.
                        And I will throw in, that none of trump's supporters have been convicted of anything relating to the original hoax.
                        So, the comment he makes about trump supporters being charged and convicted is an effort to mislead or lie about the actual convictions.
                        Either he assumed we were too stupid to know the difference or he was.
                        Avatar is General Gerard, courtesy of Zouave.

                        Churchill to Chamberlain: you had a choice between war and dishonor. You chose dishonor, and you will have war.

                        Comment


                        • #87
                          Originally posted by Cambronnne View Post



                          Well said.
                          And I will throw in, that none of trump's supporters have been convicted of anything relating to the original hoax.
                          So, the comment he makes about trump supporters being charged and convicted is an effort to mislead or lie about the actual convictions.
                          Either he assumed we were too stupid to know the difference or he was.
                          Thats not how I feel friend. The issue is that Donald Trump told his supporters to beat up protesters and said he will cover the legal costs. H Clinton never talked like that. Trump has a history of saying controversial things like no other POTUS in history so the OP is not necessarily a major surprise.
                          Long live the Lionheart! Please watch this video
                          https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_c...&v=jRDwlR4zbEM
                          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f3DBaY0RsxU
                          Accept the challenges so that you can feel the exhilaration of victory.

                          George S Patton

                          Comment


                          • #88
                            Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post

                            With regard to "Chinagate," a number of people were convicted of serious campaign finance violations.

                            Yah Lin "Charlie" Trie: Charged federally for campaign finance violations but the charges were dropped in favor of ones being pursued by Arkansas and DC. He tried to flee the US to China but ended up returning. Convicted of campaign finance felonies got 3 years probation, 4 months of that in house arrest.

                            Johnny Chung: Donated $336,000 to the DNC and Clintons. All was later "returned." Testified under oath he was working for the Chinese military and government influence buying. S
                            entenced to five years' probation and community service following an agreement to plea guilty to bank fraud, tax evasion, and two misdemeanor counts of conspiring to violate election law.

                            John Huang: Worked for the Indonesian Lippo Bank group. Gave $3.4 million to the DNC and over $1 to the Clintons. Got a position at the Commerce department once Clinton was in office and had access to classified materials. Convicted of campaign finance violations. Worked with James Riady who was at Lippo. The two committed wire fraud and continued to work together to funnel money into Clinton political coffers while he was in office. Huang under oath stated he was working with Chinese intelligence agencies.

                            There are lots more. The Clintons were as dirty as they come and up to their eyeballs in scams and quid pro quo deals for money. Chinagate makes the Mueller report and the whole Russia / Obstruction thing with Trump look like an absolute joke, and the Democrats in the House like the clowns they are.
                            No one has ever heard of those people though. Everyone knows Flynn, Manafort and Cohen they were key members of Trumps team and are today convicted felons. Manafort was a front and center face for Trump, the guy is facing solitary confinement at Rickers though possibly. Theres no comparing Trump to H Clinton. Trump is in a league of his own, he is the most controversial POTUS ever IMO...considering he was the guy from the Apprentice, the big time fast talking NYC business guy its a surprise that Trump got votes from some fellow ACG members.

                            I cant believe you and Cambronne are anti H Clinton. Thats not right, its to bad hopefully you guys can change on that view. She has never been charged, her closest advisers not charged. H Clinton also does not talk as bombastic as Trump does. And H Clinton won over the Popular vote in 2016, including from many in Chicago and Arizona.
                            Long live the Lionheart! Please watch this video
                            https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_c...&v=jRDwlR4zbEM
                            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f3DBaY0RsxU
                            Accept the challenges so that you can feel the exhilaration of victory.

                            George S Patton

                            Comment


                            • #89
                              Originally posted by Massena View Post
                              I saw the interview it was quite clear what Trump was saying. He is advocating breaking federal law.
                              Which SPECIFIC Federal Law?
                              TANSTAAFL = There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch

                              Comment


                              • #90
                                Originally posted by G David Bock View Post
                                The key issue being overlooked here is that of "dirt" = something incriminating or disparaging regards a candidate running for elected office.

                                We as citizens and voters (and taxpayers, whom are co-signers/underwriters to the guv'mint budget/deficit/debt) have a Right and reasonable expectation for a level of integrity, ethics, and honesty from the candidates running for elected office and seeking to get our vote. If there is "dirt" on a candidate, some negative aspect, knowledge, past doings, etc. that would "influence"(inform) our vote and such is being hidden from the voting public, that is the real "crime" in our process and it should not matter from whom or where this "truth" is revealed.

                                The fact that some candidates have negative aspects of their character, actions, dealings that they are trying to hide from public disclosure is the larger and more dangerous crime to both our elective processes and the security of the Nation, as this displays an intention to engage fraud and deceit to acquire a publicly elected office from which to produce legislation and national policy directions.

                                This Nation(USA) was founded upon the principle, set out in our Constitution, of an "informed electorate(citizen voters)" choosing their representatives/political leadership and the more traitorous conduct is that of those whom seek to deny that informed voting public the information they need to wisely and effectively choose how to cast their ballots. Source, from whom or where, such essential information comes is not the issue, the revelation or with-holding of such is.

                                One person's "dirt" might be another person's "fake(fabricated) news", but this is something that our founding principles and Constitutional structure assumes that a voting citizen has a Right to know and access when choosing how to cast their ballot. When one engages and supports the constraint of such essential information to the voting public they are engaging the classic methods of many a dictatorship and hence are the real enemies of our Nation, it's founding Concepts, Principles, and legal methods.

                                If we can not trust the citizen/voter to assess information regarding the candidate choices, how then can we expect them to be also able to cast that "informed electorate" vote which is the foundation of our Nation and it's self-governing concepts and principles?

                                Yes, for those whom may not have picked up on it yet, I'm primarily addressing this towards a certain member/poster here with a user name that starts with "M" and is synonymous with that of a Napoleonic Era general; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andr%C3%A9_Mass%C3%A9na
                                ... whom frequently wraps himself in our National Flag and engages a pretext of false patriotism and "national concern" while denigrating all whom don't agree with his seditious positions and views.
                                Once again, the issue isn't whom or what source provides the "dirt"; but that there is "dirt" to be revealed (or hidden) to begin with!

                                Why is it alright with some of you that a political candidate should be allowed to hide from the voting public incriminating evidence of disreputable behavings, connections, entanglements by said candidate?

                                Why does the source and/or method of revelation matter more than that such has to be revealed from other than the principal implicated?

                                Some of you are condoning deceiving and misleading the public and voters rather than providing essential truths that should be known, hence you are the ones placing National Security at risk; you are the ones being traitorous and seditious.
                                TANSTAAFL = There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch

                                Comment

                                Latest Topics

                                Collapse

                                Working...
                                X