Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Trump Will Eventuall Turn On You...

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by Nichols View Post

    That's easy; the numerous anti Trump threads on this forum driven by the MSM twisting the news to their agenda.

    I wonder what is the average....3-5 new anti Trump threads a day?
    Those items are verified that Trump either started them or continued them and all of them are not factual. It's a case of Trump lying once again.
    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


    • #32
      Originally posted by Massena View Post

      Those items are verified that Trump either started them or continued them and all of them are not factual. It's a case of Trump lying once again.
      Yes, most of those anti Trump threads are not factual. I agree with that.
      "I don't discuss sitting presidents," Mattis tells NPR in an interview. "I believe that you owe a period of quiet."

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by Nichols View Post

        Yes, most of those anti Trump threads are not factual. I agree with that.
        That's not what I said. What I was referring to was the conspiracy theories that Trump supports and promulgates. They are not factual.

        And the anti-Trump threads are factual, based for the most part on material which Trump has himself stated and that's usually on film.

        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


        • #34
          Originally posted by Massena View Post
          And the anti-Trump threads are factual, based for the most part on material which Trump has himself stated and that's usually on film.
          Most of the anti Trump threads are based off of the MSM twisting the facts. They have been doing this in full force since he made the comment about good people on both sides referring to the peaceful protesters. Not the neo nazis and ANTIFA. There is an easy way to find out if something the MSM twist is factual; critical thinking. Specific to the good people..... does anyone here believe that Trump thinks there are good people in ANTIFA?

          "I don't discuss sitting presidents," Mattis tells NPR in an interview. "I believe that you owe a period of quiet."

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by Nichols View Post

            That's easy; the numerous anti Trump threads on this forum driven by the MSM twisting the news to their agenda.

            I wonder what is the average....3-5 new anti Trump threads a day?
            well it Trumps fault that. We cant help that Trump is stupid and generates that much content. As I have said numerous times Trumps constant churn which he does intentionally destroys any quiet time he could have or steps on good press he could have. btw that does not include me wondering how the forum complained about Obama trips and give Trump a pass and he only been in office 3 years. lol Rember that discussion on this forum about Obama.

            Also the big issue is most of those stories are more true than not about Trump. Unlike someone spouting that someone was not an American for years.

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by Nichols View Post

              Most of the anti Trump threads are based off of the MSM twisting the facts. They have been doing this in full force since he made the comment about good people on both sides referring to the peaceful protesters. Not the neo nazis and ANTIFA. There is an easy way to find out if something the MSM twist is factual; critical thinking. Specific to the good people..... does anyone here believe that Trump thinks there are good people in ANTIFA?
              Cant arguing they are twisting fact when you got video of Donald saying and doing those things.

              and once again bad example one side had racist on it. the white house specifically pointed to the guys carrying torches who were neo Nazis

              Your argument works except trump said you were wrong.

              The problem is you can almost make an excuse for Donald or rationalize something and then he just blows that up with his double down methods

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by craven View Post

                well it Trumps fault that. We cant help that Trump is stupid and generates that much content. As I have said numerous times Trumps constant churn which he does intentionally destroys any quiet time he could have or steps on good press he could have.
                How can it be Trump's fault when the media lied about it?

                https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_c...&v=NM6k8uNAQBA

                "I don't discuss sitting presidents," Mattis tells NPR in an interview. "I believe that you owe a period of quiet."

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by craven View Post

                  Cant arguing they are twisting fact when you got video of Donald saying and doing those things.
                  Not tying to argue, don't you find it odd that they would show a portion of the clip where he says there were good people on both sides and not show where he said he wasn't talking about the neo nazis and white supremacist....they should be condemed......

                  Instead they report that he said there were good neo nazis and white supremacist...... and since then the MSM has been calling him that based on the twisting of the story, the manipulation of what he said.

                  "I don't discuss sitting presidents," Mattis tells NPR in an interview. "I believe that you owe a period of quiet."

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by Nichols View Post

                    Not tying to argue, don't you find it odd that they would show a portion of the clip where he says there were good people on both sides and not show where he said he wasn't talking about the neo nazis and white supremacist....they should be condemed......

                    Instead they report that he said there were good neo nazis and white supremacist...... and since then the MSM has been calling him that based on the twisting of the story, the manipulation of what he said.
                    I love this little bit of "objective" reporting from CNN.

                    Trump denies racist tweets were racist

                    https://www.cnn.com/2019/07/15/polit...ats/index.html

                    This is a "report" on Trump's tweets about the "Squad".
                    Rather than report on the actual tweet (which they edit to make it look worse) they tell us it is racist.

                    The lead paragraph of the article is as follows:

                    President Donald Trump redoubled his racist attacks on a quartet of Democratic congresswomen Monday, insisting they leave the United States if they continue complaining about his policies.


                    (which isn't what he said, but that isn't important)
                    Yeah, but CNN can be trusted to be objective.
                    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


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by Cambronnne View Post

                      hahahaha.
                      I haven't started a thread in years. Particularly a political one
                      But damn you got me there.

                      Actually, I have no favorites.
                      Of course, if you had a point, you could have addressed the facts I referenced in the link.
                      But you didn't. That kind of indicates how weak your current claim is.

                      When you can actually attack the content of any of my posts, you will have a point. But since you can't you will just rely on your prejudices.
                      Feel free to point out where any of the information I cite to is wrong. Please.
                      I'll wait.


                      The fact that you removed the balance of my post also proves my point.
                      You can't address the content so you try to attack the sources. Haha
                      There were no crimes and there was no criminal intent. I noticed you ignored my question about private servers and the Trump admin.
                      Hillary didn't have classified information on the server, I think the count was '3' confidential markings. So 0.03% of the emails were questionable.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by inevtiab1e View Post
                        There were no crimes and there was no criminal intent. I noticed you ignored my question about private servers and the Trump admin.
                        Hillary didn't have classified information on the server, I think the count was '3' confidential markings. So 0.03% of the emails were questionable.


                        Of course I ignored your request about private servers in the trump admin. The existence or nonexistence of any such server is not relevant to the question of whether Comey's statement established hillary violated the law. Your effort to bring in trump was an obvious effort to change the subject. As you are doing again now.

                        If trump was shooting people from his bedroom window it would still not be relevant.

                        The fact that you again mention "intent" means you have't read the relevant statute (I have) or understood it (I do).
                        Or understood the meaning of the phrase "gross negligence". (I understand that as well) or even how to prove "intent" (I do)
                        If you don't understand the terms it makes it hard for you to lecture others as to their meaning doesn't it. But you are still going to try.

                        The presence of a single "classified" email is enough. Try getting out of a burglary charge by telling the court you only stole 1 TV.
                        The fact that hillary had "thousands" of emails (see comey's statement) is also proof she violated the law.
                        She isn't permitted to keep any of them as they are all government property.
                        Every single one of those emails was required to be in the possession of the government, but hillary exercised exclusive control.
                        That is another violation of the law.

                        Comey said that it couldn't be proven hillary "intended" to violate the law (a lie, by the way) when the law in question only required that it be proven she was "grossly negligent"


                        While you won't read this, you will note the section in question states that the standard is "gross negligence" rather than "intent"

                        (f)
                        Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, note, or information, relating to the national defense, (1) through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, or (2) having knowledge that the same has been illegally removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of its trust, or lost, or stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, and fails to make prompt report of such loss, theft, abstraction, or destruction to his superior officer—

                        Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.


                        https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/793


                        As to the question of intent, comey lied or is incompetent, and I don't think he is incompetent.
                        If, upon leaving a store you are found to have hidden in your clothing a candy bar owned by that store that you did not pay for before leaving, that is enough to prove you intended to steal the candy bar.
                        please note that trump doesn't play any role in anything I have said.

                        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


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by Cambronnne View Post



                          Of course I ignored your request about private servers in the trump admin. The existence or nonexistence of any such server is not relevant to the question of whether Comey's statement established hillary violated the law. Your effort to bring in trump was an obvious effort to change the subject. As you are doing again now.

                          If trump was shooting people from his bedroom window it would still not be relevant.

                          The fact that you again mention "intent" means you have't read the relevant statute (I have) or understood it (I do).
                          Or understood the meaning of the phrase "gross negligence". (I understand that as well) or even how to prove "intent" (I do)
                          If you don't understand the terms it makes it hard for you to lecture others as to their meaning doesn't it. But you are still going to try.

                          The presence of a single "classified" email is enough. Try getting out of a burglary charge by telling the court you only stole 1 TV.
                          The fact that hillary had "thousands" of emails (see comey's statement) is also proof she violated the law.
                          She isn't permitted to keep any of them as they are all government property.
                          Every single one of those emails was required to be in the possession of the government, but hillary exercised exclusive control.
                          That is another violation of the law.

                          Comey said that it couldn't be proven hillary "intended" to violate the law (a lie, by the way) when the law in question only required that it be proven she was "grossly negligent"


                          While you won't read this, you will note the section in question states that the standard is "gross negligence" rather than "intent"

                          (f)
                          Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, note, or information, relating to the national defense, (1) through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, or (2) having knowledge that the same has been illegally removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of its trust, or lost, or stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, and fails to make prompt report of such loss, theft, abstraction, or destruction to his superior officer—

                          Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.


                          https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/793


                          As to the question of intent, comey lied or is incompetent, and I don't think he is incompetent.
                          If, upon leaving a store you are found to have hidden in your clothing a candy bar owned by that store that you did not pay for before leaving, that is enough to prove you intended to steal the candy bar.
                          please note that trump doesn't play any role in anything I have said.
                          Comey said he "didn't recommend prosecution" to the DOJ. What was the DOJ's final word?

                          I get that she was grossly negligent with handling classified information, She should have known that the subject matter was classified.
                          Comey said compared to other gross negligent cases, Clinton's situation wasn't as extreme.

                          Makes you wonder if Hillary had any idea that the server was unsecure. I doubt she was the person managing/sorting/deleting emails anyways.

                          In his July 2016 statement, Comey also touched on the issue of intent. "Prosecutors necessarily weigh a number of factors before bringing charges. There are obvious considerations, like the strength of the evidence, especially regarding intent. Responsible decisions also consider the context of a person’s actions, and how similar situations have been handled in the past," he said after recommending that "no reasonable prosecutor" would bring a case against Clinton.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by Cambronnne View Post

                            This supporter knew he wasn't Hillary.
                            So far, that has remained true.

                            When that changes, I will agree trump betrayed me.
                            HOLY SCAPELWEILDERS,- THAT would be the sex change operation of the Century, counsellor!!
                            Last edited by marktwain; 13 Aug 19, 22:39.
                            The trout who swims against the current gets the most oxygen..

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by inevtiab1e View Post
                              Comey said he "didn't recommend prosecution" to the DOJ. What was the DOJ's final word?

                              I get that she was grossly negligent with handling classified information, She should have known that the subject matter was classified.
                              Comey said compared to other gross negligent cases, Clinton's situation wasn't as extreme.

                              Makes you wonder if Hillary had any idea that the server was unsecure. I doubt she was the person managing/sorting/deleting emails anyways.


                              It really doesn’t matter if Hillary knew the server wasn’t secure.
                              She never had a right to exclusive control over the information on the server.
                              It was always property of the government.

                              Gross negligence doesn’t require intent, or even actual knowledge. The standard for negligence is “knew or should have known”.

                              Obama’s DOJ didn’t prosecute the democratic candidate for president during her campaign despite a clear and open violation of the law.
                              The fact that she had a private server is a violation of the law. She isn’t allowed to conduct government business in secret like that.
                              You may recall in 2008 there were accusations against Sarah plain for conducting government business on her private email, so it isn’t a new charge.
                              Having a private server was far worse than that.
                              One wonders why Hillary felt the need to hide her government business from the government though.
                              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


                              • #45
                                Good grief, give it a rest.

                                Every time Trump screws up, lies, or is blatantly disingenuous, the Trumpers bring up Hillary Clinton or President Obama.

                                That's called misdirection and it is ludicrous. Neither of them are president, and Trump is screwing up by the numbers as president. It is quite obvious the guy cannot tell the truth, manufactures or repeats conspiracy theories and only cares about himself and not the country.
                                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

                                Latest Topics

                                Collapse

                                Working...
                                X