Let’s talk Donald Trump

Discuss everything else: politics, society, culture, science, philosophy, ideas, etc.
User avatar
blackg
Hair Loss Guru
Hair Loss Guru
Posts: 1347
Joined: 1 year ago
Reputation: 1854

Re: Let’s talk Donald Trump

Post by blackg » 3 months ago

Trump deserves a second term and I think he will get one.

I remember way back in 2004 when George W. Bush was running for a second term and the overriding narrative was that he had no chance.
This line was heavily repeated by the noisy Left but we all know how that turned out: Bush won in a landslide!

So too will Trump.
Ringo, said the gringo

User avatar
Hairblues
Hair Loss Expert
Hair Loss Expert
Posts: 936
Joined: 1 year ago
Reputation: 1678
Norwood: NW1.5
Regimen: Topical minoxidil and finasteride

Re: Let’s talk Donald Trump

Post by Hairblues » 3 months ago

blackg wrote:
3 months ago
Trump deserves a second term and I think he will get one.

I remember way back in 2004 when George W. Bush was running for a second term and the overriding narrative was that he had no chance.
This line was heavily repeated by the noisy Left but we all know how that turned out: Bush won in a landslide!

So too will Trump.
It was in Bushes second term his approval rating tanked
According to old Gallup reports Bush first term average approval was 62%. Trump never got approval ratings anywhere close to that.

And what the fuck is with your country killing all those poor kitty cats with poisened sausages? Why didnt you guys neuter those killer fur balls before it became an issue. that’s some creepy 3rd world shit

User avatar
JLBB
Hair Loss Expert
Hair Loss Expert
Posts: 606
Joined: 1 year ago
Reputation: 1221
Norwood: NW1
Regimen: 0.25mg Finasteride

Re: Let’s talk Donald Trump

Post by JLBB » 3 months ago

rclark wrote:
4 months ago
Trump is probably one of the few Presidents who really should be impeached. The only
reason he isn't is because the backlash that happened with Bill Clinton, and the
Democrats know this.

Trump went too far when he ordered people to hack into computers. I don't even
care that Trump used GOP raised funds to pay a porn star for sex. More power
to him for that.

There is evidence in the Mueller report that Russia interfered. There might not be proof
connecting it to Trump, but that doesn't mean that someone didn't do it on his behalf.
I just don't believe that an entire country would hate a Presidential candidate so much
to involve themselves to that extent, without getting something in return.

If obstruction of justice is an impeachable offense, then Trump is definitely guilty. He
fired Sessions, and many other people to cover his tracks.

Nothing will happen to him though. He won't be impeached.
"Trump went too far when he ordered people to hack into computers."

He didn't "order" anyone to hack into computers you dishonest piece of shit. He was talking on the issue of Hilary's deleted emails, he said it would be nice if Russia could find the emails, it was said clearly rhetorically in jest and disdain for Hillary in a public speech with zero coordination with Russian officials, there was never any subsequent contact. You're not one for details (or much exertion of brain power at all for that matter).



" Trump used GOP raised funds to pay a porn star for sex"

Completely false, you've misunderstood the in question accused campaign finance violation. Do a quick Google search, Cohen made a payment of his own money to her under order of Trump. That has nothing to do with "GOP" funds.

"If obstruction of justice is an impeachable offense, then Trump is definitely guilty. He
fired Sessions, and many other people to cover his tracks. "

You're flat out like most fucking idiot lefties happy to point fingers without understanding the issue here don't understand and haven't looked at the law. Its disgusting.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text ... chapter-73

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1505

Here is the important aspect of the definition under relevant statute 18 U.S. Code § 1505 for obstruction:

"Whoever corruptly, or by threats or force"

Corruptly is defined as trying to conceal crime of him or others and this issue has been through the courts before. There was no crime of collusion found, and no evidence that Trump was aware others committed crimes. Therefore no evidence of corrupt intent. Secondly, none of the instances in which Trump fired or asked someone to be fired involved expressly ending an investigation into him. Its one thing to fire someone, but under obstruction he would have had to expressly through force demanded any investigation into him cease. We know this didn't happen on the facts and investigation continued.

Again, fucking retards like yourself happy to throw around accusations of serious crimes without actually knowing what you're accusing him of. Funny enough, Mueller who is a prosecutor and as senior of a legal official as a prior head of the FBI DID NOT RECOMMEND AN INDICTMENT FOR OBSTRUCTION. In other words, you're arguing against someone that is 10x more intelligent than you, has 1000x more legal understanding and looked at the specific case for 2 years. But you think that you're the one that's correct? What a fucking sorry ass idiot you are.

"Nothing will happen to him though. He won't be impeached."

Fairly sure you said in the past you expected him to be impeached for collusion. Obviously you've been proved a clueless idiot here like others on the Russia issue. Like those in the media despite vindication of NO RECOMMENDATION FOR INDICTMENT UNDER COLLUSION OR OBSTRUCTION you're acting like you were right all along. Mentally sick, fucking demented idiot.

"I just don't believe that an entire country would hate a Presidential candidate so much
to involve themselves to that extent, without getting something in return."

Trump called for better relations with Russia, Hillary called for the opposite including direct and specific escalations of military tensions and potential sanctions. If you can't figure out why Russia would prefer one over the other, its because as has already been shown, you're a fucking idiot. The money that was spent by those in connection to the Russian government (not the Russian government itself) is slightly over one hundred thousand in an election with BILLIONS spend on political donations to the parties. If you think that is a serious problem and a threat to American Democracy, you need a mental health check.

When I say its hard to argue with your post because literally NOTHING is accurate this is what I mean. Its a fucking mess.

Added in 21 minutes 1 second:
That Guy wrote:
3 months ago
The FBI and CIA are literally some of the most-corrupt organizations in the world. The former should be outright disbanded, frankly.

They have been planning to remove him right from day one

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/02/14/andrew- ... trump.html


There is no, nor was there ever, any Russian conspiracy. He knew it, you knew it, we all knew it. Explain to me how he was NOT justified in using a power he rightfully has to revoke security clearance from "muh russia" people like Brennan when we now can say, 100%, there was no conspiracy to do some non-descript thing?

Tell me, where were you when Obama discussed missile defences with the Russians right under your nose?



There was no Russian conspiracy. Trump is not a Russian agent.

He is an Israeli puppet.

They have been planning to remove him right from day one

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/02/14/andrew- ... trump.html


Anyone who can read this and pretends that its conspiratorial to use the term "deep state" is a dishonest cult member that would defend absolutely anything as long as its anti-Trump. There are quite literally hundreds more examples among top officials of multiple intelligence agencies, including what they openly admit on cable news. Brennan quite literally said he suspected Trump to be colluding with the Russians on the information he had which of course proved false. Great fucking intelligence instincts from the head of an intelligence agency. Not to mention the Clinton campaign funded dossier used to successfully obtain FISA warrants to spy on Trump campaign members.

Suggesting he is an Israeli puppet is extreme, but at least the suspicion would be founded on genuine evidence that suggests its a possibility. The opposite was the case on Russia.

Added in 4 minutes 51 seconds:
rclark wrote:
3 months ago
President Trump is the only person censoring the Mueller report. He and his son continually lie about how it should
be made public, but he uses Barr to censor it, and I don't even think he believed it would ever be public. He tweeted
before it came out that it would "exonerate him". I don't know how anybody can buy his bullshit.

This post is about Trump, so I will explain it. He's charged with blocking justice. Now, I'm obviously not saying he is a Russian
spy, but to the fact he lied about making hotels there (business dealings he had), in addition one of his campaign managers,
Paul Manafort, was sentenced to four years in prison for it after a jury found him guilty.

Trump is the only President who blocked FBI clearances. He also fired is Attorney General. He is having his current
Attorney General hide things in the Mueller report. Trump is clearly hiding things behind the scenes. It's obvious
Trump is hiding things.

Blocking a journalist's clearance is just a facist thing to do.

It could be that Donald Trump is protecting his oldest son, Donald Trump Junior. It's really strange that he would
pay a Russian lawyer for dirt on Hillary Clinton. That's is what he is saying.

Trump is clearly obstructing justice.

For him to say in public, the report should be viewed by everyone, and then turn around and have Barr censor
parts out is complete bullshit. It is.

I don't think the President really believed that the report would ever be seen by the public. Otherwise he
wouldn't say it "exonerates him" on Twitter.

He could have the Attorney General make the whole thing public, but he doesn't.
" He tweeted before it came out that it would "exonerate him". I don't know how anybody can buy his bullshit."


Because it DID exonerate him. No collusion, and no legal evidence to indict for obstruction in a 2 year long investigation. How fucking delusional are you? THE FACTS LITERALLY SHOW THE OPPOSITE OF WHAT YOU'RE SAYING.

User avatar
rclark
Hair Loss Guru
Hair Loss Guru
Posts: 1144
Joined: 1 year ago
Reputation: 1257
Norwood: NW4
Regimen: Finasteride 1 mg daily, Progesterone 2% (22mg daily), Minoxidil 15% hair growth only).
Using 1.5 mm needle on all bald/balding areas weekly.

Re: Let’s talk Donald Trump

Post by rclark » 3 months ago

@JLBB , the Mueller report specifically mentions both Donald's kids, and the
IRA. You should read it before posting your stupid side comments. I never said the report mentioned
President Trump directly, in fact I said it didn't, but came to the conclusion that he did.

The Mueller report specifically says Donald Jr and Eric Trump by name, and Russia.

Read the report yourself before posting your idiotic comments like a two year old.

The report is over four hundred pages long, in PDF format (and public). For that reason, it is
too big to post the link here.

Donald Trump Jr's involvement is well known. In fact, he is probably going to be asked to testify.

Why don't you read it before making your stupid comments. It is a little long, so it might be
an issue for you.

So you don't consider a tape of Trump paying Stormy Daniels evidence. Maybe you're the one
that lacks brain power.

Why do you think she recieved money, to give Trump a lap dance? Are you serious.

That's the weakest argument yet.

There is tape of him discussing money with Cohen. Still denying it? A tape Cohen made, because
he was asked to do illegal things for his boss at the time.

You must live in a vacuum somewhere, with a disconnected internet connection. Wow.
JLBB wrote:
3 months ago
"Trump went too far when he ordered people to hack into computers."

He didn't "order" anyone to hack into computers you dishonest piece of shit. He was talking on the issue of Hilary's deleted emails, he said it would be nice if Russia could find the emails, it was said clearly rhetorically in jest and disdain for Hillary in a public speech with zero coordination with Russian officials, there was never any subsequent contact. You're not one for details (or much exertion of brain power at all for that matter).



" Trump used GOP raised funds to pay a porn star for sex"

Completely false, you've misunderstood the in question accused campaign finance violation. Do a quick Google search, Cohen made a payment of his own money to her under order of Trump. That has nothing to do with "GOP" funds.

"If obstruction of justice is an impeachable offense, then Trump is definitely guilty. He
fired Sessions, and many other people to cover his tracks. "

You're flat out like most fucking idiot lefties happy to point fingers without understanding the issue here don't understand and haven't looked at the law. Its disgusting.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text ... chapter-73

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1505

Here is the important aspect of the definition under relevant statute 18 U.S. Code § 1505 for obstruction:

"Whoever corruptly, or by threats or force"

Corruptly is defined as trying to conceal crime of him or others and this issue has been through the courts before. There was no crime of collusion found, and no evidence that Trump was aware others committed crimes. Therefore no evidence of corrupt intent. Secondly, none of the instances in which Trump fired or asked someone to be fired involved expressly ending an investigation into him. Its one thing to fire someone, but under obstruction he would have had to expressly through force demanded any investigation into him cease. We know this didn't happen on the facts and investigation continued.

Again, fucking retards like yourself happy to throw around accusations of serious crimes without actually knowing what you're accusing him of. Funny enough, Mueller who is a prosecutor and as senior of a legal official as a prior head of the FBI DID NOT RECOMMEND AN INDICTMENT FOR OBSTRUCTION. In other words, you're arguing against someone that is 10x more intelligent than you, has 1000x more legal understanding and looked at the specific case for 2 years. But you think that you're the one that's correct? What a fucking sorry ass idiot you are.

"Nothing will happen to him though. He won't be impeached."

Fairly sure you said in the past you expected him to be impeached for collusion. Obviously you've been proved a clueless idiot here like others on the Russia issue. Like those in the media despite vindication of NO RECOMMENDATION FOR INDICTMENT UNDER COLLUSION OR OBSTRUCTION you're acting like you were right all along. Mentally sick, fucking demented idiot.

"I just don't believe that an entire country would hate a Presidential candidate so much
to involve themselves to that extent, without getting something in return."

Trump called for better relations with Russia, Hillary called for the opposite including direct and specific escalations of military tensions and potential sanctions. If you can't figure out why Russia would prefer one over the other, its because as has already been shown, you're a fucking idiot. The money that was spent by those in connection to the Russian government (not the Russian government itself) is slightly over one hundred thousand in an election with BILLIONS spend on political donations to the parties. If you think that is a serious problem and a threat to American Democracy, you need a mental health check.

When I say its hard to argue with your post because literally NOTHING is accurate this is what I mean. Its a fucking mess.

Added in 21 minutes 1 second:


They have been planning to remove him right from day one

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/02/14/andrew- ... trump.html


Anyone who can read this and pretends that its conspiratorial to use the term "deep state" is a dishonest cult member that would defend absolutely anything as long as its anti-Trump. There are quite literally hundreds more examples among top officials of multiple intelligence agencies, including what they openly admit on cable news. Brennan quite literally said he suspected Trump to be colluding with the Russians on the information he had which of course proved false. Great fucking intelligence instincts from the head of an intelligence agency. Not to mention the Clinton campaign funded dossier used to successfully obtain FISA warrants to spy on Trump campaign members.

Suggesting he is an Israeli puppet is extreme, but at least the suspicion would be founded on genuine evidence that suggests its a possibility. The opposite was the case on Russia.

Added in 4 minutes 51 seconds:


" He tweeted before it came out that it would "exonerate him". I don't know how anybody can buy his bullshit."


Because it DID exonerate him. No collusion, and no legal evidence to indict for obstruction in a 2 year long investigation. How fucking delusional are you? THE FACTS LITERALLY SHOW THE OPPOSITE OF WHAT YOU'RE SAYING.
Added in 11 seconds:
So you don't consider a tape of Trump paying Stormy Daniels evidence. Maybe you're the one
that lacks brain power.

Yes, he did pay Stormy Daniels. How do we know this? Because of his former lawyer, Cohens
had a tape of him doing it.

Are you still going to deny it?
JLBB wrote:
3 months ago
"Trump went too far when he ordered people to hack into computers."

He didn't "order" anyone to hack into computers you dishonest piece of shit. He was talking on the issue of Hilary's deleted emails, he said it would be nice if Russia could find the emails, it was said clearly rhetorically in jest and disdain for Hillary in a public speech with zero coordination with Russian officials, there was never any subsequent contact. You're not one for details (or much exertion of brain power at all for that matter).



" Trump used GOP raised funds to pay a porn star for sex"

Completely false, you've misunderstood the in question accused campaign finance violation. Do a quick Google search, Cohen made a payment of his own money to her under order of Trump. That has nothing to do with "GOP" funds.

"If obstruction of justice is an impeachable offense, then Trump is definitely guilty. He
fired Sessions, and many other people to cover his tracks. "

You're flat out like most fucking idiot lefties happy to point fingers without understanding the issue here don't understand and haven't looked at the law. Its disgusting.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text ... chapter-73

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1505

Here is the important aspect of the definition under relevant statute 18 U.S. Code § 1505 for obstruction:

"Whoever corruptly, or by threats or force"

Corruptly is defined as trying to conceal crime of him or others and this issue has been through the courts before. There was no crime of collusion found, and no evidence that Trump was aware others committed crimes. Therefore no evidence of corrupt intent. Secondly, none of the instances in which Trump fired or asked someone to be fired involved expressly ending an investigation into him. Its one thing to fire someone, but under obstruction he would have had to expressly through force demanded any investigation into him cease. We know this didn't happen on the facts and investigation continued.

Again, fucking retards like yourself happy to throw around accusations of serious crimes without actually knowing what you're accusing him of. Funny enough, Mueller who is a prosecutor and as senior of a legal official as a prior head of the FBI DID NOT RECOMMEND AN INDICTMENT FOR OBSTRUCTION. In other words, you're arguing against someone that is 10x more intelligent than you, has 1000x more legal understanding and looked at the specific case for 2 years. But you think that you're the one that's correct? What a fucking sorry ass idiot you are.

"Nothing will happen to him though. He won't be impeached."

Fairly sure you said in the past you expected him to be impeached for collusion. Obviously you've been proved a clueless idiot here like others on the Russia issue. Like those in the media despite vindication of NO RECOMMENDATION FOR INDICTMENT UNDER COLLUSION OR OBSTRUCTION you're acting like you were right all along. Mentally sick, fucking demented idiot.

"I just don't believe that an entire country would hate a Presidential candidate so much
to involve themselves to that extent, without getting something in return."

Trump called for better relations with Russia, Hillary called for the opposite including direct and specific escalations of military tensions and potential sanctions. If you can't figure out why Russia would prefer one over the other, its because as has already been shown, you're a fucking idiot. The money that was spent by those in connection to the Russian government (not the Russian government itself) is slightly over one hundred thousand in an election with BILLIONS spend on political donations to the parties. If you think that is a serious problem and a threat to American Democracy, you need a mental health check.

When I say its hard to argue with your post because literally NOTHING is accurate this is what I mean. Its a fucking mess.

Added in 21 minutes 1 second:


They have been planning to remove him right from day one

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/02/14/andrew- ... trump.html


Anyone who can read this and pretends that its conspiratorial to use the term "deep state" is a dishonest cult member that would defend absolutely anything as long as its anti-Trump. There are quite literally hundreds more examples among top officials of multiple intelligence agencies, including what they openly admit on cable news. Brennan quite literally said he suspected Trump to be colluding with the Russians on the information he had which of course proved false. Great fucking intelligence instincts from the head of an intelligence agency. Not to mention the Clinton campaign funded dossier used to successfully obtain FISA warrants to spy on Trump campaign members.

Suggesting he is an Israeli puppet is extreme, but at least the suspicion would be founded on genuine evidence that suggests its a possibility. The opposite was the case on Russia.

Added in 4 minutes 51 seconds:


" He tweeted before it came out that it would "exonerate him". I don't know how anybody can buy his bullshit."


Because it DID exonerate him. No collusion, and no legal evidence to indict for obstruction in a 2 year long investigation. How fucking delusional are you? THE FACTS LITERALLY SHOW THE OPPOSITE OF WHAT YOU'RE SAYING.

User avatar
JLBB
Hair Loss Expert
Hair Loss Expert
Posts: 606
Joined: 1 year ago
Reputation: 1221
Norwood: NW1
Regimen: 0.25mg Finasteride

Re: Let’s talk Donald Trump

Post by JLBB » 3 months ago

rclark wrote:
3 months ago
JLBB , the Mueller report specifically mentions both Donald's kids, and the
IRA. You should read it before posting your stupid side comments. I never said the report mentioned
President Trump directly, in fact I said it didn't, but came to the conclusion that he did.

The Mueller report specifically says Donald Jr and Eric Trump by name, and Russia.

Read the report yourself before posting your idiotic comments like a two year old.

The report is over four hundred pages long, in PDF format (and public). For that reason, it is
too big to post the link here.

Donald Trump Jr's involvement is well known. In fact, he is probably going to be asked to testify.

Why don't you read it before making your stupid comments. It is a little long, so it might be
an issue for you.

So you don't consider a tape of Trump paying Stormy Daniels evidence. Maybe you're the one
that lacks brain power.

Why do you think she recieved money, to give Trump a lap dance? Are you serious.

That's the weakest argument yet.

There is tape of him discussing money with Cohen. Still denying it? A tape Cohen made, because
he was asked to do illegal things for his boss at the time.

You must live in a vacuum somewhere, with a disconnected internet connection. Wow.



Added in 11 seconds:
So you don't consider a tape of Trump paying Stormy Daniels evidence. Maybe you're the one
that lacks brain power.

Yes, he did pay Stormy Daniels. How do we know this? Because of his former lawyer, Cohens
had a tape of him doing it.

Are you still going to deny it?

"JLBB , the Mueller report specifically mentions both Donald's kids, and the
IRA. You should read it before posting your stupid side comments. I never said the report mentioned
President Trump directly, in fact I said it didn't, but came to the conclusion that he did."

This quite literally has NOTHING to do with the discussion or what we were talking about. These sentences don't even fucking make sense.

" I never said the report mentioned President Trump directly, in fact I said it didn't, but came to the conclusion that he did."

Meaningless blather.

"https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyl ... 01b8e1d534"

"So you don't consider a tape of Trump paying Stormy Daniels evidence. Maybe you're the one
that lacks brain power."

Again, you literally ignore my point and just spout completely irrelevant garbage that has nothing to do with the discussion. What you said was "Trump used GOP raised funds to pay a porn star for sex", I pointed out that these are not GOP raised funds, it was a personal contribution out of Cohens pocket. Details matter. This clearly has nothing to do with denying Trump ordered the payment, its specifically pointing out your clueless reference of the money as "GOP funds" showing as usual you don't know the details of what you're talking about.

"Why do you think she recieved money, to give Trump a lap dance? Are you serious"

The money (which wasn't GOP raised funds as you moronically stated) was hush money, not a payment to for her to have sex with him. Again, get the fucking details right for once. You sound like you have Alzheimers or some kind of comprehension skills related mental illness, I genuinely feel bad at how muddled everything that comes out of your keyboard is. Not GOP raised funds like you said, and not a payment for sex. Stormy herself said she didn't charge him to begin with for the supposed sex. Get.The.Fucking.Details.Right.

"The report is over four hundred pages long, in PDF format (and public). For that reason, it is
too big to post the link here."

You haven't read the report yourself, and aren't smart enough to do so. You said on the last page "This post is about Trump, so I will explain it. He's charged with blocking justice." THE REPORT DOES NOT CHARGE HIM WITH OBSTRUCTING JUSTICE YOU IDIOTIC FUCKHEAD. STOP MAKING THINGS UP.

"https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1505"

The Mueller report itself never established corrupt intent required under the legal definition for obstruction, hence why he was not indicted or recommended to be. You cannot keep saying its clear when a legal team that spent countless hours and tens of millions on looking to piece together a case against Trump couldn't find evidence enough to indict. You cannot say he was charged when he wasn't charged. You're living in a conspiratorial dream world.

"He is having his current Attorney General hide things in the Mueller report. Trump is clearly hiding things behind the scenes. It's obvious
Trump is hiding things. "

AGAIN, THERE WAS A TWO YEAR INVESTIGATION AND A REPORT YOU'RE TELLING ME TO READ INTO THE MATTER BY AN INDEPENDENT SPECIAL COUNCIL RESPECTED ON BOTH SIDES OF POLITICS. IT CAME THE THE CONCLUSION THAT THERE IS NO EVIDENCE TRUMP IS HIDING ANYTHING BEHIND THE SCENES. YOU CANNOT ARBITRARILY STATE THAT ITS OBVIOUS WHEN THERE IS NO EVIDENCE. AND AGAIN, YOU CANNOT SAY HIS ATTORNEY IS HIDING THINGS IF YOU HAVE NO EVIDENCE, MUELLER AND HIS TEAM WOULD BE ABLE TO TELL THE PUBLIC IF THIS WAS THE CASE REGARDLESS. SAYING ITS "OBVIOUS" WITH NO EVIDENCE ISN'T EVIDENCE OF ANYTHING OTHER THAN THAT YOU'RE A BIASED FUCKING IDIOT NPC, A DIGITAL SPAWN OF A CNN PRODUCED ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE.

Use your fucking head for once rclark, no one is as fucking stupid as you're coming across right now. Actually look at the facts and details of what you're talking about before taking sides. You embarrass yourself. I don't know if you deliberately ignore what I write and respond with irrelevant nonsense that has nothing to do with the discussion or if you're just a complete idiot/psychologically damaged, but people would have an easier time arguing with a brick wall.

User avatar
Hairblues
Hair Loss Expert
Hair Loss Expert
Posts: 936
Joined: 1 year ago
Reputation: 1678
Norwood: NW1.5
Regimen: Topical minoxidil and finasteride

Re: Let’s talk Donald Trump

Post by Hairblues » 3 months ago

Someone who’s more often defended Trump than not.
Definitely not a never-trumper.
It surprised me he did this.


User avatar
Afro_Vacancy
Hair Loss Guru
Hair Loss Guru
Posts: 1478
Joined: 1 year ago
Reputation: 3655
Norwood: NW2
Regimen: 1 ml of 5% liquid minoxidil, includes ~20 mg of RU58841 58841; nizoral 3x/week, dermarolling (1.5 mm) 1x/week

Re: Let’s talk Donald Trump

Post by Afro_Vacancy » 3 months ago

I'm glad that I never deep dived into the Russia-gate conspiracy theories. I now don't need to contort myself like a pretzel.

What I think did happen is that Russia intervened in the US election on their own without consulting and without coordinating with Trump, in order to promote instability in the USA, and because they preferred Trump due to their own national priorities. They did this, by likely being the ones responsible for Assange/Wikileaks surviving, perhaps by funding some of the leaking, and by being the source of a lot of alt-right / alt-left thinking on the blogosphere via Russia Today. News and ideology are an expensive business, and take money.

Russia is one of many countries and entities that intervenes in US elections. For example, Saudi Arabia and Israel have intervened as well but people seem to be ok with that. Britain intervened in both world wars and in the civil war, and also in the war of 1812 and in the independence war ;-) Russia intervened in the civil war (on the side of the union) though that is obscure history. Meanwhile, the United States intervened in elections all over the world, in every continent.

The root cause of Russiagate is that large swaths of the left wants a bogeyman to get over what happened. They want to believe that the Trump presidency is an aberration of American history imposed by external factors, when in fact that very notion is completely improbable. The election of Trump was the result of trillions of moving parts spread over a period of several years, and roughly ~50 million voters. It is a consequence of American history, rather than an aberration of it. Among the issues, Bill Clinton and Barack Obama were not the perfect presidents that some incorrectly believe them to be, there were large parts of the country suffering under the watch. If they keep on suffering, the situation will worsen.

Edited to add: As we speak, there is an opium epidemic, increasing suicide rates, increasing child mortality, and decreasing life expectancy. A candidate like Elizabeth Warren or Bernie Sanders who actually wants to help people could go a long way, but God help us all if Joseph Biden becomes the nominee on the platform of having the middle class sell their kidneys, sperm, eggs, and blood plasma in order to pay the banks their loans.
Last edited by Afro_Vacancy 3 months ago, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
JLBB
Hair Loss Expert
Hair Loss Expert
Posts: 606
Joined: 1 year ago
Reputation: 1221
Norwood: NW1
Regimen: 0.25mg Finasteride

Re: Let’s talk Donald Trump

Post by JLBB » 3 months ago

Hairblues wrote:
3 months ago
Someone who’s more often defended Trump than not.
Definitely not a never-trumper.
It surprised me he did this.

His definition of obstruction of justice is flat out verifiably wrong by the statute he's referencing.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1505

Obstruction of justice doesn't simply involve trying to end an investigation conducted by the government like Napolitano says here. It specifically refers to obstructing "corruptly" as in being aware of suspecting or having committed a crime and trying to inhibit this being caught. This or trying obstruct an investigation by threats or force. He goes on to mention the dozen or so instances of potential obstruction, in all of these Mueller did not assert an objective claim of Trump "corruptly" inhibiting investigation, or have the evidence to do so. Its right there in the statute, its not as if he's illiterate or untrained in interpreting a statute. His example of tackling someone giving evidence is clearly irrelevant as it implies force under the second potential aspect of obstruction. Trump didn't exert anything of the sort and this was acknowledged on the facts.

He also mentions that Trump dangled a pardon in front of Cohen to stop him testifying against him. Haven't seen a shred of evidence that's accurate, appears be a downright lie. The only case referenced that even comes close to obstruction is telling Comey that he hoped he could let the investigation into Flynn go, however its also clearly not a direct order or genuinely impeding justice in this situation, as evidenced by the fact that investigations continued without alteration and the issue wasn't pressed further by Trump.



"Ever since Andrew came to my office to ask that I appoint him to the U.S. Supreme Court, and I said NO, he has been very hostile! Also asked for pardon for his friend. "

Trump often makes ridiculous claims that are potentially untrue like this in various Twitter insults, but the fact that you have a supposed legal expert blatantly ignoring the statute he claims to be applying tends to make me agree with Trumps explanation. Its clearly personal.

Worth considering :


"He's been very wrong before.

Fall 2016: Napolitano was “100-percent certain” Hillary Clinton was about to be prosecuted.

August 2015: Napolitano said that Clinton’s emails revealed the location of Ambassador Stevens, who was killed in Benghazi.

March 2012: He accused President Obama of signing a “secret bill” to abridge free speech"


It's only a Reddit quote but it seems to be accurate from a quick check.
Last edited by JLBB 3 months ago, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
rclark
Hair Loss Guru
Hair Loss Guru
Posts: 1144
Joined: 1 year ago
Reputation: 1257
Norwood: NW4
Regimen: Finasteride 1 mg daily, Progesterone 2% (22mg daily), Minoxidil 15% hair growth only).
Using 1.5 mm needle on all bald/balding areas weekly.

Re: Let’s talk Donald Trump

Post by rclark » 3 months ago

This is from FOX news as well. A conservative based news station.
Hairblues wrote:
3 months ago
Someone who’s more often defended Trump than not.
Definitely not a never-trumper.
It surprised me he did this.


User avatar
JLBB
Hair Loss Expert
Hair Loss Expert
Posts: 606
Joined: 1 year ago
Reputation: 1221
Norwood: NW1
Regimen: 0.25mg Finasteride

Re: Let’s talk Donald Trump

Post by JLBB » 3 months ago

Afro_Vacancy wrote:
3 months ago
I'm glad that I never deep dived into the Russia-gate conspiracy theories. I now don't need to contort myself like a pretzel.

What I think did happen is that Russia intervened in the US election on their own without consulting and without coordinating with Trump, in order to promote instability in the USA, and because they preferred Trump due to their own national priorities. They did this, by likely being the ones responsible for Assange/Wikileaks surviving, perhaps by funding some of the leaking, and by being the source of a lot of alt-right / alt-left thinking on the blogosphere via Russia Today. News and ideology are an expensive business, and take money.

Russia is one of many countries and entities that intervenes in US elections. For example, Saudi Arabia and Israel have intervened as well but people seem to be ok with that. Britain intervened in both world wars and in the civil war, and also in the war of 1812 and in the independence war ;-) Russia intervened in the civil war (on the side of the union) though that is obscure history. Meanwhile, the United States intervened in elections all over the world, in every continent.

The root cause of Russiagate is that large swaths of the left wants a bogeyman to get over what happened. They want to believe that the Trump presidency is an aberration of American history imposed by external factors, when in fact that very notion is completely improbable. The election of Trump was the result of trillions of moving parts spread over a period of several years, and roughly ~50 million voters. It is a consequence of American history, rather than an aberration of it. Among the issues, Bill Clinton and Barack Obama were not the perfect presidents that some incorrectly believe them to be, there were large parts of the country suffering under the watch. If they keep on suffering, the situation will worsen.
It should also be noted that the tiny amounts of coordination and money spent by Russia (some still unproven such as the hacking of the DNC network even in the Mueller report despite everyone pretending its gospel at this point) is in the hundreds of thousands. RT certainly supported Trump over Hillary, but how much of an impact did they have on causing people to vote Trump? This is all in the context of an electoral system in which political donations within the United States are in the billions, with 99% of this being spent. Add on top of that everything you mention about intervention in elections from the US and to the US in understanding what exactly occurred and magnitudes of importance.

https://www.sbs.com.au/news/sanders-cam ... ng-aussies

Virtually never see it mentioned but this is a verified example of genuine attempt to intervene in some way in a foreign election from a major party of a large nation. But of course Australia and their left-wing major party is hardly the bogeyman that Russia can be portrayed as.

User avatar
rclark
Hair Loss Guru
Hair Loss Guru
Posts: 1144
Joined: 1 year ago
Reputation: 1257
Norwood: NW4
Regimen: Finasteride 1 mg daily, Progesterone 2% (22mg daily), Minoxidil 15% hair growth only).
Using 1.5 mm needle on all bald/balding areas weekly.

Re: Let’s talk Donald Trump

Post by rclark » 3 months ago

Reddit is full of true information. :clap: :lol:

JLBB wrote:
3 months ago
His definition of obstruction of justice is flat out verifiably wrong by the statute he's referencing.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1505

Obstruction of justice doesn't simply involve trying to end an investigation conducted by the government like Napolitano says here. It specifically refers to obstructing "corruptly" as in being aware of suspecting or having committed a crime and trying to inhibit this being caught. This or trying obstruct an investigation by threats or force. He goes on to mention the dozen or so instances of potential obstruction, in all of these Mueller did not assert an objective claim of Trump "corruptly" inhibiting investigation, or have the evidence to do so. Its right there in the statute, its not as if he's illiterate or untrained in interpreting a statute. His example of tackling someone giving evidence is clearly irrelevant as it implies force under the second potential aspect of obstruction. Trump didn't exert anything of the sort and this was acknowledged on the facts.

He also mentions that Trump dangled a pardon in front of Cohen to stop him testifying against him. Haven't seen a shred of evidence that's accurate, appears be a downright lie. The only case referenced that even comes close to obstruction is telling Comey that he hoped he could let the investigation into Flynn go, however its also clearly not a direct order or genuinely impeding justice in this situation, as evidenced by the fact that investigations continued without alteration and the issue wasn't pressed further by Trump.



"Ever since Andrew came to my office to ask that I appoint him to the U.S. Supreme Court, and I said NO, he has been very hostile! Also asked for pardon for his friend. "

Trump often makes ridiculous claims that are potentially untrue like this in various Twitter insults, but the fact that you have a supposed legal expert blatantly ignoring the statute he claims to be applying tends to make me agree with Trumps explanation. Its clearly personal.

Worth considering :


"He's been very wrong before.

Fall 2016: Napolitano was “100-percent certain” Hillary Clinton was about to be prosecuted.

August 2015: Napolitano said that Clinton’s emails revealed the location of Ambassador Stevens, who was killed in Benghazi.

March 2012: He accused President Obama of signing a “secret bill” to abridge free speech"


It's only a Reddit quote but it seems to be accurate from a quick check.

User avatar
Hairblues
Hair Loss Expert
Hair Loss Expert
Posts: 936
Joined: 1 year ago
Reputation: 1678
Norwood: NW1.5
Regimen: Topical minoxidil and finasteride

Re: Let’s talk Donald Trump

Post by Hairblues » 3 months ago

JLBB wrote:
3 months ago
His definition of obstruction of justice is flat out verifiably wrong by the statute he's referencing.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1505

Obstruction of justice doesn't simply involve trying to end an investigation conducted by the government like Napolitano says here. It specifically refers to obstructing "corruptly" as in being aware of suspecting or having committed a crime and trying to inhibit this being caught. This or trying obstruct an investigation by threats or force. He goes on to mention the dozen or so instances of potential obstruction, in all of these Mueller did not assert an objective claim of Trump "corruptly" inhibiting investigation, or have the evidence to do so. Its right there in the statute, its not as if he's illiterate or untrained in interpreting a statute. His example of tackling someone giving evidence is clearly irrelevant as it implies force under the second potential aspect of obstruction. Trump didn't exert anything of the sort and this was acknowledged on the facts.

He also mentions that Trump dangled a pardon in front of Cohen to stop him testifying against him. Haven't seen a shred of evidence that's accurate, appears be a downright lie. The only case referenced that even comes close to obstruction is telling Comey that he hoped he could let the investigation into Flynn go, however its also clearly not a direct order or genuinely impeding justice in this situation, as evidenced by the fact that investigations continued without alteration and the issue wasn't pressed further by Trump.



"Ever since Andrew came to my office to ask that I appoint him to the U.S. Supreme Court, and I said NO, he has been very hostile! Also asked for pardon for his friend. "

Trump often makes ridiculous claims that are potentially untrue like this in various Twitter insults, but the fact that you have a supposed legal expert blatantly ignoring the statute he claims to be applying tends to make me agree with Trumps explanation. Its clearly personal.

Worth considering :


"He's been very wrong before.

Fall 2016: Napolitano was “100-percent certain” Hillary Clinton was about to be prosecuted.

August 2015: Napolitano said that Clinton’s emails revealed the location of Ambassador Stevens, who was killed in Benghazi.

March 2012: He accused President Obama of signing a “secret bill” to abridge free speech"


It's only a Reddit quote but it seems to be accurate from a quick check.

About your interpretation of the law vs his.

Your issue is with the word coruptly?

I’m reading that sentence in the law in total and I’m not interpreting the meaning the same way you are.

Leaving trump out of it for a moment can you expand on this?

because I’m taking that word in the full context to mean ‘ a dishonest practice’ meaning the act of obstructing is dishonest in intention and then it lists the ways.
As in not innocently doing it.
Innocently like you tossed out a piece of evidence by accident with the garbage and corruptly meaning you knowingly set a match to the evidence.

As about the Cohen pardon,
I agree that’s sticky because it’s an email that reads (from trumps lawyer to Cohen) ‘sleep well you have friends in high places’.
It’s definitely something an intelligent person would have an understanding that it can be interpreted as sketchy (meaning personally, I question the defense lawyer sending it innocently to Cohen)
BUT it’s not from Trump himself.

As for trumps explanation for Napolitano, I mean the man lies so much, I don’t have the benefit of doubt when it comes to his opinion or his version of the truth or facts that someone else may extend to him.

Napolitano is NOT my poster child for getting shit right. However, we can all pull pros and cons with every legal expert who gives their opinions that support our own opinions.

The reason i shared him was I found it interesting because he’s someone I’ve only seen defend trump in past.
It would be to me similar, if Janine Piero, a former prosecutor who defends Trump, suddenly started to criticize him. I would also be like ‘whoa’.

Plus Trump has praised him ‘A very talented legal mind’


Added in 15 minutes 6 seconds:
Below is the only part of the statue that has ‘corruptly’
I interpret that to mean knowingly did the act of obstructing or interfering NOT anything to do with guiilt it innonce of initial crime.


Whoever ‘corruptly’, or by threats or force, or by any threatening letter or communication influences, obstructs, or impedes or endeavors to influence, obstruct, or impede the due and proper administration of the law under which any pending proceeding is being had before any department or agency of the United States, or the due and proper exercise of the power of inquiry under which any inquiry or investigation is being had by either House, or any committee of either House or any joint committee of the Congress—

Shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 5 years or, if the offense involves international or domestic terrorism (as defined in section 2331), imprisoned not more than 8 years, or both.

User avatar
rclark
Hair Loss Guru
Hair Loss Guru
Posts: 1144
Joined: 1 year ago
Reputation: 1257
Norwood: NW4
Regimen: Finasteride 1 mg daily, Progesterone 2% (22mg daily), Minoxidil 15% hair growth only).
Using 1.5 mm needle on all bald/balding areas weekly.

Re: Let’s talk Donald Trump

Post by rclark » 2 months ago

yettee wrote:
4 months ago
How do you know what's an error, and what's a lie? Are you sure it wasn't simply a lie? You might say, why would he lie about that, that's crazy! Of course it was an error. Yet for the last several weeks he's been running around saying that his father was born in another country, a place where he most assuredly was not born. And he most assuredly knows that. He said it several times, in several locations. Why? It's equally bizarre.
This is how politicians like Democratic Mayor Andrew Cuomo get away with their bullshit. Same as Republican President Trump.

Nobody questions them.

Yet Trump put multiple zeros.

Nobody questions Trump's sincerity about abortions, coming from a man who made his living off of ripping people off in
gambling casinos.

Nobody questions a candidate like wealthy politicians like Andrew Cuomo, who made his career off the money of wealthy donors who gave to his
campaign and his fathers.

User avatar
blackg
Hair Loss Guru
Hair Loss Guru
Posts: 1347
Joined: 1 year ago
Reputation: 1854

Re: Let’s talk Donald Trump

Post by blackg » 2 months ago

@rclark, lol, I love your signature, mate.
Ringo, said the gringo

User avatar
rclark
Hair Loss Guru
Hair Loss Guru
Posts: 1144
Joined: 1 year ago
Reputation: 1257
Norwood: NW4
Regimen: Finasteride 1 mg daily, Progesterone 2% (22mg daily), Minoxidil 15% hair growth only).
Using 1.5 mm needle on all bald/balding areas weekly.

Re: Let’s talk Donald Trump

Post by rclark » 2 months ago

blackg wrote:
2 months ago
rclark, lol, I love your signature, mate.
Thank you. I designed it myself. It gives me telepathic abilities.

Everybody on this board was hoping that it would become my new avatar.

It's as if Jesus came to me himself, and told me to use it.

Post Reply
  • Similar Topics
    Replies
    Views
    Last post

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 2 guests