rangerx Posted February 16, 2017 Share Posted February 16, 2017 (edited) You see in the US we have this legal requirement that people are innocent until proven guilty. Maybe you have heard of it. I recall this from here. Quote: Should a candidate who put her personal convenience ahead of national security be elected president even if that conduct was not considered prosecutable by the FBI? Should a candidate who had her supporters within her party put their thumb on the scale in order to win her party's nomination be elected president? Should a candidate who won't disclose her speeches to banks and wall street be elected president? What did she tell them that she now feels important to hide from the general public? Should a candidate who tried to send an innocent person to prison, so she could provide a crony job to her political financial supporters be elected president? Should a candidate who promised to isolate herself from a charitable foundation her family controls, but then used her personal aides and agents to maintain contact with that charitable foundation, and then gave special access to foundation donors to lobby the state department be elected president? Then this little gem from here: Quote: I believe the is sufficient evidence in both her past and present to convince any thinking person that Hillary Clinton is not truthful. Her lack of truthfulness extends into important issues like national security (email), defending American soil (Benghazi), and pursuing criminal prosecution of an innocent individual (Billy Dale). I don't care if she is the "least qualified" I simply care if she is qualified or not. I think she is not truthful and therefore not qualified. So Mr.waitforufo, by your logic I'll ask you these questions.... Should a president who put his personal convenience ahead of national security remain president even if that conduct was not considered prosecutable by the FBI? Should a candidate who had his supporters within his party put their thumb on the scale in order to win his party's nomination remain president? Should a candidate who won't disclose his tax returns, won't divest himself of his business assets and wall street be elected president? What did he tell Pence or Flynn that he now feels important to hide from the general public? Should a president who tries to send an innocent person to prison, so he could provide a crony job to his political financial supporters remain president? Should a president who promised to isolate himself from a corporation his family controls, but then used his personal aides and agents to maintain contact with a Russian ambassador, and then gave special access to campaign donors to the executive branch be allowed to remain president? Do you believe there is sufficient evidence in both his past and present to convince any thinking person that Donald Trump is not truthful. His lack of truthfulness extends into important issues like national security, defending American soil (Russia), and pursuing criminal prosecution of an innocent individuals (intelligence community). Do you not care if he is the "least qualified", but simply care if he is qualified or not? Do you think he is not truthful and therefore not qualified? Edited February 16, 2017 by rangerx 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrmDoc Posted February 16, 2017 Author Share Posted February 16, 2017 So Mr.waitforufo, by your logic I'll ask you these questions.... Should a president who put his personal convenience ahead of national security remain president even if that conduct was not considered prosecutable by the FBI? Should a candidate who had his supporters within his party put their thumb on the scale in order to win his party's nomination remain president? Should a candidate who won't disclose his tax returns, won't divest himself of his business assets and wall street be elected president? What did he tell Pence or Flynn that he... Mr. waitforufo has a habit of vanishing from discussions when asked to answer multiple questions, which is something he essentially confessed to me in a prior post. He's sort of a Kamikaze commenter, who frequently flames in and out of discussions. So, you may want to keep it short if you want a reply before Christmas. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dimreepr Posted February 16, 2017 Share Posted February 16, 2017 You see in the US we have this legal requirement that people are innocent until proven guilty. Maybe you have heard of it. Waste you time with investigations, hearings, and legal procedures. You haven't slowed Trump down yet. I don't think you are going to, particularly when you have nothing. So what's your excuse? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iNow Posted February 16, 2017 Share Posted February 16, 2017 "You have nothing. Why investigate?" Hard to know even where to start with that one. The logic here seems simple, but is being missed. You investigate first to ensure there's nothing requiring more attention. Pretty straight forward, really. Arguing the opposite is a bit like saying, "whelp... lost my keys. clearly there's no sense going to look for them." ... Unless, of course, it's Benghazi. Then we know it's appropriate to investigate even when past investigations have confirmed nothing happened. When a Dem is in office, we must always choose instead to spend $8M ($8,000 per day) across 10 committees on these things. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rangerx Posted February 16, 2017 Share Posted February 16, 2017 Mr. waitforufo has a habit of vanishing from discussions when asked to answer multiple questions, which is something he essentially confessed to me in a prior post. He's sort of a Kamikaze commenter, who frequently flames in and out of discussions. So, you may want to keep it short if you want a reply before Christmas. I tried using the same language so they'd understand and respond accordingly, but no. No contribution to the discussion insomuch as trolling it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arete Posted February 16, 2017 Share Posted February 16, 2017 So what exactly was "negotiated?" Until you have that, the Logan act does not apply. Yes intercepted phone conversations mean a lot to me. What authorization did the government have for tapping these phone conversations. What authorization did the government have in releasing this information? Without authorization that second question I'm sure is a felony. I think the FBI needs to find that person and send them to prison. The right to privacy is in the first amendment. As I was alluding to, there is a striking double standard exposed by current events and the outrage of you and the rest of the "lock her up" crowd expressed at similar events which faced a certain Democratic nominee, that is not apparent with regard to the current President. However events of his first less than one month in office reveal a deeper, more troubling aspect of that position, e.g. Members of the Trump administration apparently had extensive contact with Russian Intelligence at the same time as Russian Intelligence was using acts of espionage to manipulate the US federal election. Trump was not in the situation room for the first military operation of his administration, which went awry and resulted in one US and multiple civilian casualties. Trump mishandled classified information on a North Korean missile launch. Conway openly broke federal ethic rules on national television. It seems as though Trump has outdone virtually every misdeed leveled at Clinton over a 40 year career in less than one month - but where's the outcry? It seems as though the anti Clinton campaign was essentially a smokescreen - it doesn't matter if our guy is dirty, so long as he wins. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waitforufo Posted February 17, 2017 Share Posted February 17, 2017 Mr. waitforufo has a habit of vanishing from discussions when asked to answer multiple questions, which is something he essentially confessed to me in a prior post. He's sort of a Kamikaze commenter, who frequently flames in and out of discussions. So, you may want to keep it short if you want a reply before Christmas. Well I did try to reply to all of the above posts directed at me today, but I just didn't have time. I'm off for my winter vacation to Hawaii tomorrow, returning on March 3. The only reason I am posting today is that so many of you seem to miss me when I'm not posting. That is particularly true of DrmDoc as can be seen from the above. I hope you, DrmDoc, won't miss me too much and can hold out until I return. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iNow Posted February 17, 2017 Share Posted February 17, 2017 Enjoy your trip. Safe travels to you and your family. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rangerx Posted February 17, 2017 Share Posted February 17, 2017 I'm off for my winter vacation to Hawaii tomorrow, returning on March 3. The only reason I am posting today is that so many of you seem to miss me when I'm not posting. I don't or won't miss you one iota. I'm merely debunking comments and agreeing with DrmDoc as to your skirting around pointed questions. That said, I'll convey my wishes to you and your family for a safe and pleasant vacation. That and the faint hope you might actually get over yourself. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Memammal Posted February 17, 2017 Share Posted February 17, 2017 I watched that press conference last night (local time) and I agree with a headline that I just read: "Trump lets loose at bewildering press conference". Bewildering indeed. I was gobsmacked. I would love to see a proper fact check on all the things he said. This man clearly is a narcist of note, a potential dictator obsessed with self-serving propaganda, a unintelligent loose canon who is disconnected from reality...all in all a very dangerous person indeed. I fear for America, I fear for the world. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ten oz Posted February 17, 2017 Share Posted February 17, 2017 "You have nothing. Why investigate?" Hard to know even where to start with that one. The logic here seems simple, but is being missed. You investigate first to ensure there's nothing requiring more attention. Pretty straight forward, really. Arguing the opposite is a bit like saying, "whelp... lost my keys. clearly there's no sense going to look for them." ... Unless, of course, it's Benghazi. Then we know it's appropriate to investigate even when past investigations have confirmed nothing happened. When a Dem is in office, we must always choose instead to spend $8M ($8,000 per day) across 10 committees on these things. Which is why candidates for office do things like release their taxes and answer direct questions. They work to earn the trust of voters in advance. The "Trump hasn't been convicted of a crime so we cannot investigate him " argument is absurd!!!! Citizens suspected of a crime are investigated first, arrested, charged, and given a chance to defend themselves in court. It is not conviction first investigation second. I watched that press conference last night (local time) and I agree with a headline that I just read: "Trump lets loose at bewildering press conference". Bewildering indeed. I was gobsmacked. I would love to see a proper fact check on all the things he said. This man clearly is a narcist of note, a potential dictator obsessed with self-serving propaganda, a unintelligent loose canon who is disconnected from reality...all in all a very dangerous person indeed. I fear for America, I fear for the world. What I find most troubling about it is how unneccesary Trump's actions are. He does have a very strong base of support and currently thing are good in the country. The economy is strong. Trump could spend his first 100 days just visiting factories and talking about jobs.Taking credit for every new job and every bounce in the stock market. His approval ratings would be great right now. Congress is in GOP control so Trump will have an easy time getting most of what he wants so why rush things out with sloppy executive orders? He easy could have had the DOJ draft a travel ban with would have held up in court but chose to do it in a chaotic way. His behavior shows that he has little mental grasp on what he is doing. He is fighting battles of his own creation battling the press over crowd size, the electoral college numbers, TV ratings, and etc. His mental faculties to do the job are highly suspect in my opinion and not because I disagree with his politics but because even those who seem to agree with his politics struggle to understand and support what he is doing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrmDoc Posted February 17, 2017 Author Share Posted February 17, 2017 I don't or won't miss you one iota. I'm merely debunking comments and agreeing with DrmDoc as to your skirting around pointed questions. That said, I'll convey my wishes to you and your family for a safe and pleasant vacation. That and the faint hope you might actually get over yourself. Ditto. I watched that press conference last night (local time) and I agree with a headline that I just read: "Trump lets loose at bewildering press conference". Bewildering indeed. I was gobsmacked. I would love to see a proper fact check on all the things he said. This man clearly is a narcist of note, a potential dictator obsessed with self-serving propaganda, a unintelligent loose canon who is disconnected from reality...all in all a very dangerous person indeed. I fear for America, I fear for the world. It was an astonishing farce. Throughout, Trump's comport was frequently immature, vindictive, and undignified for an American president. Unfortunately, this is the person he was as a presidential candidate and I doubt his extraordinarily narcissistic displays will change the opinion of his supporters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ten oz Posted February 17, 2017 Share Posted February 17, 2017 Ditto. It was an astonishing farce. Throughout, Trump's comport was frequently immature, vindictive, and undignified for an American president. Unfortunately, this is the person he was as a presidential candidate and I doubt his extraordinarily narcissistic displays will change the opinion of his supporters. White male privilage on IMAX level display. I can't imagine a woman or minority at the national level being able to behave like this. We can talk about fake news, politics being treated like sport, the lack of Civics in public education, and etc but racial identity have been the biggest issue. It is the glue that holds Trump's fake facts together and how many went about picking which team to be on. Part of the problem is pragmatic and thoughtful people are also far too polite and Trump, along with his supporters, take advantage of that. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrmDoc Posted February 18, 2017 Author Share Posted February 18, 2017 Here's a surprising revelation, Mr. Trump actually selected a man of integrity and character to replace his fired national security adviser. It seems that retired vice-admiral Robert Howard, being a man of integrity, effectively declined the position after watching Trump's recent news conference debacle. I think admiral Howard should be admired for his decision to keep his distinguished career in service to our country unsullied by a position in Trump's administration. No doubt, Mr. Trump will now disparage admiral Howard and say he was never a serious consideration. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrmDoc Posted February 19, 2017 Author Share Posted February 19, 2017 According to Donald Trump, a terror attack occurred last night in Sweden. Given Sweden's investigation and response to the president's claim, the only evidence of that attack appears to be Mr.Trump's imagination. It appears Mr. Trump has become the bane of his administration, a source of fake news. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iNow Posted February 19, 2017 Share Posted February 19, 2017 According to Donald Trump, a terror attack occurred last night in Sweden. Given Sweden's investigation and response to the president's claim, the only evidence of that attack appears to be Mr.Trump's imagination. It appears Mr. Trump has become the bane of his administration, a source of fake news.Seems most likely he's referencing the (also almost certainly fake / exaggerated / hyperbolic) claims made in Breitbart and related alt-right / racist Swedish "news" sources about the alleged rape epidemic of Muslim men raping Swedish women. http://www.vox.com/world/2017/2/19/14662244/trump-sweden-terrorist-attack-fake “What we’re hearing is a very, very extreme exaggeration based on a few isolated events, and the claim that it’s related to immigration is more or less not true at all,” Jerzy Sarnecki, a criminologist at Stockholm University, told Saunders. These panics about immigration, instead, reflect a long history of sexual panics in the West about non-white immigrants. Scholars Selda Dagistanli and Kiran Grewal argue that warnings about an immigrant rape epidemic draw more on preexisting Western prejudices about the violent sexuality of Muslim men than they represent a reaction to actual facts. The so-called “rape epidemic” is just something anti-immigrant campaigners have latched on to to justify their preexisting desire to shut the door on Muslim migration. So while Trump’s “last night in Sweden” slip up is pretty funny, it’s likely drawing on a pretty troubling narrative. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ten oz Posted February 19, 2017 Share Posted February 19, 2017 According to Donald Trump, a terror attack occurred last night in Sweden. Given Sweden's investigation and response to the president's claim, the only evidence of that attack appears to be Mr.Trump's imagination. It appears Mr. Trump has become the bane of his administration, a source of fake news. Trump knows that so long as his lies feel true to his supporter than they will not care he is lying. Sure, maybe there wasn't a terror attack in Sweden last night but there have been terror attacks in the world over the last few months and that is the bigger point his supporters focus on. The message is that terror is a problem and white people, specifically, are dying because of Islam. It is a message conservatives on the right believe and respond to. Rather than mentioning the real terror attack in Pakistan that killed more than 80 people this week Trump made up a terror attack that happened in Sweden because he knows his crowd would relate more viscerally to the image of Swedes than Pakistanis. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrmDoc Posted February 19, 2017 Author Share Posted February 19, 2017 Trump knows that so long as his lies feel true to his supporter than they will not care he is lying. Sure, maybe there wasn't a terror attack in Sweden last night but there have been terror attacks in the world over the last few months and that is the bigger point his supporters focus on. The message is that terror is a problem and white people, specifically, are dying because of Islam. It is a message conservatives on the right believe and respond to. Rather than mentioning the real terror attack in Pakistan that killed more than 80 people this week Trump made up a terror attack that happened in Sweden because he knows his crowd would relate more viscerally to the image of Swedes than Pakistanis. His rise to the presidency and hold on power resides in his ability to stoke the fears of weak minded individuals who are blind to his tactics. At almost ever turn, Mr. Trump has demonstrated his ignorance of real governance and statesmanship. It's my hope that he remains true to his nature and doesn't somehow become more circumspect, thereby assuring no second term for his administration. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ten oz Posted February 19, 2017 Share Posted February 19, 2017 (edited) His rise to the presidency and hold on power resides in his ability to stoke the fears of weak minded individuals who are blind to his tactics. At almost ever turn, Mr. Trump has demonstrated his ignorance of real governance and statesmanship. It's my hope that he remains true to his nature and doesn't somehow become more circumspect, thereby assuring no second term for his administration. It is too early to say. All his voter fraud talk may (probably will) lead to more voter supression. And after this past electionwhere we saw congressional investigations and a FBI investigation against a major party Candidate through the whole campiagn I think it is safe to assume that tactic will be used again. Senators Warren and Booker will quickly find themselves embroiled in partisan manifested scandals soon as they acknowledge an interest in a 2020 bid. Meanwhile the 62 or so million people who voted for Trump in 2016 will vote for him again. Clearly facts are meaningless to them. Edited February 19, 2017 by Ten oz Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrmDoc Posted February 19, 2017 Author Share Posted February 19, 2017 It is too early to say. All his voter fraud talk may (probably will) lead to more voter supression. And after this past electionwhere we saw congressional investigations and a FBI investigation against a major party Candidate through the whole campiagn I think it is safe to assume that tactic will be used again. Senators Warren and Booker will quickly find themselves embroiled in partisan manifested scandals soon as they acknowledge an interest in a 2020 bid. Meanwhile the 62 or so million people who voted for Trump in 2016 will vote for him again. Clearly facts are meaningless to them. Although you've expressed some very real and compelling concerns, you do realize that you are expressing liberal fears rather than the intransient fears that have proven successful for Trump. Unless we focus on what makes America less stabile and secure under this administration, Trump will likely reap a second term. Those 62 million voters have to be shown how his allegiance to Russia, false terrorism claims, self-serving and poorly conceive domestic and international policies are not in the best interest of their stability and security. Trump's supporter have to be convinced that he really doesn't know what he's doing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ten oz Posted February 19, 2017 Share Posted February 19, 2017 Although you've expressed some very real and compelling concerns, you do realize that you are expressing liberal fears rather than the intransient fears that have proven successful for Trump. Unless we focus on what makes America less stabile and secure under this administration, Trump will likely reap a second term. Those 62 million voters have to be shown how his allegiance to Russia, false terrorism claims, self-serving and poorly conceive domestic and international policies are not in the best interest of their stability and security. Trump's supporter have to be convinced that he really doesn't know what he's doing. No one who reasons with facts would have voted for Trump in the first place in my opinion. We are talking about people who watched Trump lie, plainly lie with little no nuance, for over a year and still voted for him. We are also talking about people who broadly don't believe in things like Climate Change and Evolution. Facts simply are not game changers to them. Then there is the issue of media. Conservatives and liberals are informed by very different types of media. The gym I go to most morning attempts to be neutral by having every TV in the place on a different news channel. So depending on what I am doing I am within ear shot of MSNBC, CNN, FoxNews, or various local stations. FoxNews is pure propaganda far as I can tell. They defend every Trump lie while casting doubts on Trump's detractors with a combination of false equivalencies, conspiracy theories, and urban legands. It is actually frightening such nonsense is considered news to a healthy percentage of the population. CNN and MSNBC attempt to correct the record but force themselves to give Trump apologists nearly equal time out of a immature understand of fairness. Proportionately of air time is based on bothsides of an issue taking turns and not any sort of ratio based on truth. Meanwhile the local channels do everything they can to avoid politicals and report everything everyone says as its own island of truth and moves on. Only someone who has a desire to knows things and seeks out information is being informed. Trump supporters currently are not seeking out information. I don't see that changing. Hillary Clinton won 3 million more votes and it wasn't enough. Obama won 5 million more than Romney in 12' and it was enough. However, In key states like WI, OH, MI, and etc Obama only won by a couple hundred thousand votes. Trump will get 62 million votes again in 2020. To beat Trump Democrats with need about a million more votes than they got in 2016 spred across WI, PA, MI, OH, and FL. It won't come from flipping Trump supporters. Democrats will need to increase turnout in those states, most of which saw a drop in 2016. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrmDoc Posted February 23, 2017 Author Share Posted February 23, 2017 Apparently, this administration is abdicating it's responsibility to protect the rights of some of it's most vulnerable citizens. Trump has signed orders rolling back protections for transgender students by deferring that responsibility to individual states, which virtually assures unequal protection under the law. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrmDoc Posted February 24, 2017 Author Share Posted February 24, 2017 Freedom of the press is a cornerstone of our democracy. Now access to government press briefings by legitimate outlets is being denied. Is there any firmer evidence of how solidly this administration is aligning itself with the wrong side of freedom? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StringJunky Posted February 24, 2017 Share Posted February 24, 2017 Freedom of the press is a cornerstone of our democracy. Now access to government press briefings by legitimate outlets is being denied. Is there any firmer evidence of how solidly this administration is aligning itself with the wrong side of freedom? I reckon Tayip Erdogan and Trump are twins. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrmDoc Posted February 24, 2017 Author Share Posted February 24, 2017 (edited) I reckon Tayip Erdogan and Trump are twins. Trump certainly seems to be heading in Edrogan's direction but I don't think he'll get that far. I mean, we can still publicly call him a wanker without risk of arrest. It's very clear that he just doesn't know what he's doing and I think his increasingly negative rating supports that perception. My hope is that our democracy survives this administration without irreparable social damage. Edited February 24, 2017 by DrmDoc 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now