Jump to content

Donald Trump


dimreepr
 Share

Recommended Posts

 

I look forward to having this chat again 4 years from now. Republicans never think politicians, even their own, will solve all things great and small. Not being and American, you must have Republicans confused with Democrats. I just think Trump is better than Ms. Clinton.

 

Gaslighting?

 

You're right. I am confused. Unless of course that wasn't you whining incessantly about your president and a liberal candidate with fabricated tales then goose-stepping the current president elect for actually doing those things you derided so vehemently then?

 

And yes, you are gaslighting. Spiteful and hypocritically.

 

See what I mean. Group psychosis is the only explanation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gee, I tried to search for these exact quotes and I can't find anything. Can you provide your sources?

My irony meter just exploded. Sources?

 

Foreign states trying to interfere in another countries election. I'm glad the US never does that. I'm sure Netanyahu would agree.

Does moving the goalposts ever get tiring?

 

Interference by a law enforcement organization? If that is what you want to call transparency be my guest. I personally think that the American people needed to know that the investigation continued particularly after that same law enforcement agency said it had stopped investigating. An investigation that would have never started if Ms. Clinton has simply shipped her server to the National Archives. Finally did the American people not know that Trump had a business empire prior to the election. Is this some revelation you discovered just recently?

What you personally think doesn't supercede the law. The justice department told him not to do it. Funny how Comey didn't divulge investigations involving Trump.

 

It's not an issue of knowing he had business interests, though his refusal to divulge information made it difficult to know the extent. Prior presidents have had them. It's that he has not divested his interests, as every other president-elect has done. And that he has businesses that will cause him to be in violation of the Constitution if he doesn't sell them. Unprecedented, and to pretend otherwise is intellectually dishonest.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What you personally think doesn't supercede the law. The justice department told him not to do it. Funny how Comey didn't divulge investigations involving Trump.

 

It's not an issue of knowing he had business interests, though his refusal to divulge information made it difficult to know the extent. Prior presidents have had them. It's that he has not divested his interests, as every other president-elect has done. And that he has businesses that will cause him to be in violation of the Constitution if he doesn't sell them. Unprecedented, and to pretend otherwise is intellectually dishonest.

Because the justice department told Comey not to makes it against the law? Can you site a law violated by Comey. If you can he should be arrested. Did Comey ever testify before congress regarding a Trump investigation? Did Comey ever testify to congress that he had concluded an investigation against Trump? Is the FBI investigating Trump?

 

Please site the violation of the Constitution regarding the President of the United State and divesting business interests prior to or after becoming president. I am not aware of any.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A great deal of our democracy rests on respect for norms and traditions that allow our government to function without explicitly being enumerated in law.

 

Those traditions have been eroding for some time and I fear the attrition is only going to accelerate in the coming years.

 

This is going to be a bad time to live through.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A great deal of our democracy rests on respect for norms and traditions that allow our government to function without explicitly being enumerated in law.

 

Those traditions have been eroding for some time and I fear the attrition is only going to accelerate in the coming years.

 

This is going to be a bad time to live through.

Swansont is claiming violations of the law not norms or traditions. He should back up those claims.

 

With regard to norms and traditions, are those similar to rules? You know, like the rules that Ms. Clinton broke with regard to sending her emails to the National Archives, securing classified information, etc.

Edited by waitforufo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gee, I tried to search for these exact quotes and I can't find anything. Can you provide your sources?

 

I was paraphrasing. Wait, you've started reading sources?! Are you sure? They'd have facts and stuff.

 

Why don't I put together some of your quotes and John McCain's quotes and Mitt Romney's quotes about Russia and Putin? Then you can tell me how much Putin has changed over the last 8 years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I was paraphrasing. Wait, you've started reading sources?! Are you sure? They'd have facts and stuff.

 

Why don't I put together some of your quotes and John McCain's quotes and Mitt Romney's quotes about Russia and Putin? Then you can tell me how much Putin has changed over the last 8 years.

When you are paraphrasing you don't use quotation marks. In case you don't know what a quotation marks are, they look like this, " ", or sometimes like this, ' '. Also you left dates, or at least years when these quoted statements were made. Where these dates also retrieved from your biased memory.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When you are paraphrasing you don't use quotation marks. In case you don't know what a quotation marks are, they look like this, " ", or sometimes like this, ' '. Also you left dates, or at least years when these quoted statements were made. Where these dates also retrieved from your biased memory.

 

You can pretend to be exacting and accurate, but who here is going to buy it? You blew that bridge up long ago.

 

You can't tell me you wouldn't be screaming if the Russians had released the GOP emails they hacked and held back the Dems. Again, why aren't you worried that the Russians are using the emails they hacked from the GOP as blackmail leverage against the US? Your attitude doesn't pass the stink test. You're just a party sheeple, and anybody is OK as long as he's Republican. Even Trump, who is putting his buddies at Exxon Mobil in a trillion dollar bed with one of the US's worst enemy. The sheer corruption going on as the alligators are being swapped out and put back in the same swamp should have you screaming, but it's OK because it's not Hillary.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

You can pretend to be exacting and accurate, but who here is going to buy it? You blew that bridge up long ago.

 

You can't tell me you wouldn't be screaming if the Russians had released the GOP emails they hacked and held back the Dems. Again, why aren't you worried that the Russians are using the emails they hacked from the GOP as blackmail leverage against the US? Your attitude doesn't pass the stink test. You're just a party sheeple, and anybody is OK as long as he's Republican. Even Trump, who is putting his buddies at Exxon Mobil in a trillion dollar bed with one of the US's worst enemy. The sheer corruption going on as the alligators are being swapped out and put back in the same swamp should have you screaming, but it's OK because it's not Hillary.

It's hard to scream over things that didn't happen. Maybe the Russians didn't release any hacked emails from the GOP because they were simply routine and boring. With regard to blackmailing Republicans I have no worries. The DNC and Podesta emails were highly entertaining and informative. Ask Debbie Wasserman Schultz. Ask Donna Brazile. What's wrong with Exxon? They put a tiger in my tank, and I love gasoline. I couldn't be happier with the appointment of Rex Tillerson. If we are going to have a swamp, I would rather have the swamp filled with Republican alligators. You statement shows you thought there was a swamp and were happy with Democratic alligators.

 

Yes, I would have voted for anyone other than Ms. Clinton, but why worry about my vote. I live in Washington State. All Washington State electors will be voting for Ms. Clinton. If it hadn't been for local initiatives, I might not have voted at all. Cathy McMorris Rodgers was a shoe in so that didn't draw me to the polls.

Edited by waitforufo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Because the justice department told Comey not to makes it against the law? Can you site a law violated by Comey. If you can he should be arrested. Did Comey ever testify before congress regarding a Trump investigation? Did Comey ever testify to congress that he had concluded an investigation against Trump? Is the FBI investigating Trump?

*cite

 

The Hatch act.

 

Please site the violation of the Constitution regarding the President of the United State and divesting business interests prior to or after becoming president. I am not aware of any.

 

The emoluments clause. Now you're aware.

 

Maybe read the Constitution sometime.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One more for the "reality is stranger than fiction" files:

 

https://techcrunch.com/2016/12/15/the-government-body-that-oversees-the-security-of-voting-systems-was-itself-hacked/

The government body that oversees the security of voting systems was itself hacked

Meanwhile attempts to get paper ballot recounts done to verify the computer results were rejected in court.

 

Rejected in MI:

http://www.freep.com/story/news/politics/2016/12/06/trump-schuette-michigan-recount-election/95048550/

 

Rejected in PA:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/politics/ct-pennsylvania-election-recount-20161212-story.html

 

Rejected in WI:

http://www.jsonline.com/story/news/politics/elections/2016/11/29/steins-recount-headed-court-tuesday/94598740/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First, thank you for the information

 

The Hatch act.

If Comey violated the Hatch act, why is he not under arrest? CNN had an interesting article on the subject.

 

http://www.cnn.com/2016/10/31/politics/what-is-the-hatch-act/

 

 

From the article.

 

 

But violators aren't going to jail: the Hatch Act is not a criminal statute. Instead, it is an administrative constraint on government employees.

So no criminal statute was violated.

 

 

 

Thus, as relevant in the case with FBI chief Comey, the Justice Department issued a memo in March 2016 (like similar memos in previous election years), emphasizing that employees "should be particularly mindful of these rules in an election year," and defining prohibited political activity to include all "activity directed toward the success or failure of a political party, candidate for partisan political office, or partisan political group."

Rules? Well in the age of Ms. Clinton, do "rules" have any meaning?

 

 

 

The key text is the emphasized phrase -- which conditions a violation of the statute on whether the employee's purpose was to interfere with or affect the result of an election. Thus, the Hatch Act does not focus on the effect of the employee's conduct, but the intent. To that end, if Comey did not intend to interfere with or affect the upcoming election through his letter to Congress, then he did not violate the letter of the Hatch Act.

Any evidence that Comey's intent was to affect the result of an election? Good luck with proving that.

 

The emoluments clause. Now you're aware.

So let's take a look at the emoluments clause.

 

 

 

No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.

Interesting that you are not complaining about Ms. Clinton and her relationship with the Clinton Foundation. Were Ms. Clinton's husband and daughter not paid by the Clinton Foundation? Did the Clinton Foundation not accept cash presents from foreign States while Ms. Clinton was secretary of state? Maybe the Clintons had the consent of congress for their foundation. I'm not aware either way. I know the Clintons accepted gifts while in the white house, and took those gifts with them when they left office. But enough about the Clintons.

 

Has Mr. Trump violated the emolument clause? Well certainly not yet since he has never held any office of profit or trust. Will he be in violation on inauguration day? Well that depends on if he accepts any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State. Well, I guess that depends on the definition of the word "Emolument." Here is the oxford dictionary definition. https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/emolument

 

 

A salary, fee, or profit from employment or office:

‘the directors' emoluments’

 

Will Mr. Trump be in the employ of any King, Prince, or foreign State after he takes office? I don't see how, particularly if he is not running his businesses. No more that Ms. Clinton did by having her daughter and husband in the employ of the Clinton Foundation while she was secretary of state.

 

 

Edited by waitforufo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

First, thank you for the information

 

If Comey violated the Hatch act, why is he not under arrest? CNN had an interesting article on the subject.

 

http://www.cnn.com/2016/10/31/politics/what-is-the-hatch-act/

 

 

From the article.

So no criminal statute was violated.

 

So? I didn't say criminal statute, and neither did you, originally. I said law.

 

Rules? Well in the age of Ms. Clinton, do "rules" have any meaning?

Ah, the good old "you do it, too" fallacy, along with false equivalence. As we all know, Ms. Clinton is not the president-elect (But if she were, and were doing what Trump is doing to even a tenth of the magnitude, I'm sure there would be multitudes screaming about each one), and we're talking about the office of the president.

 

 

Any evidence that Comey's intent was to affect the result of an election? Good luck with proving that.

The interference itself is the violation. Intent is a separate matter.

 

 

So let's take a look at the emoluments clause.

 

Interesting that you are not complaining about Ms. Clinton and her relationship with the Clinton Foundation. Were Ms. Clinton's husband and daughter not paid by the Clinton Foundation? Did the Clinton Foundation not accept cash presents from foreign States while Ms. Clinton was secretary of state?

No, they were not. The Clintons did not gain any benefits from the donations.

http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2016/sep/01/hilary-rosen/democrat-pundit-clintons-get-no-personal-benefit-f/

 

Maybe the Clintons had the consent of congress for their foundation. I'm not aware either way. I know the Clintons accepted gifts while in the white house, and took those gifts with them when they left office.

All of which was legal; all presidents can accept personal gifts.

 

But enough about the Clintons.

Yes, enough distraction and poisoning the well.

 

 

Has Mr. Trump violated the emolument clause? Well certainly not yet since he has never held any office of profit or trust. Will he be in violation on inauguration day? Well that depends on if he accepts any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State. Well, I guess that depends on the definition of the word "Emolument." Here is the oxford dictionary definition. https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/emolument

 

 

Will Mr. Trump be in the employ of any King, Prince, or foreign State after he takes office? I don't see how, particularly if he is not running his businesses. No more that Ms. Clinton did by having her daughter and husband in the employ of the Clinton Foundation while she was secretary of state.

That's just it — if he divests his businesses this is all moot. But if foreign government officials stay at a Trump hotel, he is making a profit from a foreign government. You see, when you stay at a hotel you pay money to them, and part of that (after expenses are paid) is called a profit. So he will be gaining this profit from a foreign government.

 

How about a foreign government giving him a better deal for a new hotel he wants to put up? Money goes into his pocket.

 

Can you see how that works now? Or are you still not clear how money works?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First, thank you for the information

 

If Comey violated the Hatch act, why is he not under arrest? CNN had an interesting article on the subject.

 

http://www.cnn.com/2016/10/31/politics/what-is-the-hatch-act/

 

 

From the article.

So no criminal statute was violated.

 

Rules? Well in the age of Ms. Clinton, do "rules" have any meaning?

 

Which rules has Hillary Clinton violated and not been taken to task for? Every accusation against Hillary Clinton has been exhaustedly chased to the ground including the fake conspiracy ones. She has testified before Congress, given depositions under oath, had her private emails subpoenead, publicly released all her financial records, and has even been illegally hacked and private material released.

 

Such sarcastic comments that reflect fallacious narratives to deflect from the facts of what's being discussed is ugly and terribly disrespectful. At the heart of your post you are basically saying that while rules were broken you don't care because in this case your team got away with it. Sort of like when Trump said not paying taxes makes him smart. It isn't what is right or wrong. It is about what one can getaway with vs not getaway with. If that is how you feel than own up to it and accept it being pointed out how poorly that reflects on your moral compass, character, and integrity. Better than denying it and proving yourself ignorant, dishonest, and crass.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Such sarcastic comments that reflect fallacious narratives to deflect from the facts of what's being discussed is ugly and terribly disrespectful. At the heart of your post you are basically saying that while rules were broken you don't care because in this case your team got away with it. Sort of like when Trump said not paying taxes makes him smart. It isn't what is right or wrong. It is about what one can getaway with vs not getaway with. If that is how you feel than own up to it and accept it being pointed out how poorly that reflects on your moral compass, character, and integrity. Better than denying it and proving yourself ignorant, dishonest, and crass.

Don't put this on me. I'm simply pointing out the irony of those complaining about possible future Trump transgressions after ignoring the same actual transgressions of their defeated candidate. Go read the Hillary Clinton topic.

 

One further thing regarding the emoluments clause. The clause includes "without the Consent of the Congress". Who runs congress?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don't put this on me. I'm simply pointing out the irony of those complaining about possible future Trump transgressions after ignoring the same actual transgressions of their defeated candidate. Go read the Hillary Clinton topic.

They are not the same transgressions. This is false equivalence, a dishonest debating tactic. You're the one doing it, so don't pretend you aren't responsible for what you post.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They are not the same transgressions. This is false equivalence, a dishonest debating tactic. You're the one doing it, so don't pretend you aren't responsible for what you post.

I take full responsibility for what I post, but lets review.

 

I posted the following.

Rules? Well in the age of Ms. Clinton, do "rules" have any meaning?

 

Based on that I received the following reply.

Such sarcastic comments that reflect fallacious narratives to deflect from the facts of what's being discussed is ugly and terribly disrespectful. At the heart of your post you are basically saying that while rules were broken you don't care because in this case your team got away with it. Sort of like when Trump said not paying taxes makes him smart. It isn't what is right or wrong. It is about what one can getaway with vs not getaway with. If that is how you feel than own up to it and accept it being pointed out how poorly that reflects on your moral compass, character, and integrity. Better than denying it and proving yourself ignorant, dishonest, and crass.

 

So lets take a walk down memory lane over at the Hillary Clinton topic.

 

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/98061-hillary-clinton/page-10#entry942673

 

A violation of rules isn't necessarily a violation of law or a criminal act. According to the FBI investigation led by a respected republican appointee, it's my understanding that Mrs. Clinton's email mishandling may have violated the rules but was not a violation of law or a criminally prosecutorial offense. What you may consider "evidence of three crimes", were merely violations of rules that do not rise to criminality according the investigative arm of our government. Those were three mole hills that partisans want us to believe are mountains, which they are not according to a fair and thorough investigation. It's time to let this one go.

 

So Ms. Clinton set the new standard for violating rules. The are "merely violations of rules that do not rise to criminality" and there for should have no relevance.

 

Your candidate, not mine.

I'll let you ponder that while the electoral college votes today.

Edited by waitforufo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I take full responsibility for what I post, but lets review.

Yes, let's. You claimed that Trump is undertaking "the same actual transgressions" as Clinton. Which is a steaming pile of BS.

 

I can't begin to fathom the mental gymnastics it takes to think that this claim is true. Unlike the way the GOP repeatedly acts, things do not become true just because you say it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On a different tack, if I may, the Guardian Word of the Year is

 

Unpresidented

 

My spellchecker here needs to be updated, because it is now a word. One meaning is

 

unpresidented

An instance of someone being “prepared to say what most of us are thinking”, but actually saying things most of us are not thinking

Except, most of us are not thinking the things Trump is thinking. And if we are, it is only in the sense of: “Who in their right mind would think that?”

The Guardian has an article here which gives some other definitions, such as An irrecoverable act of folly committed by a president

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So Ms. Clinton set the new standard for violating rules. The are "merely violations of rules that do not rise to criminality" and there for should have no relevance.

 

If I recall correctly, you were among the throng calling for Hillary's prosecution for criminal violations. Despite your call and misperception, an extensive investigate found no criminal violations of government rules nor violations that harm the security of our nation. I agree that any violation of government rules should have consequences; however, as I understand, the penalties for violating government rules only apply to individuals who are actually in the employ of the government. As a candidate or ex-Secretary of State, Ms. Clinton was not subject to those penalties.

 

I'll let you ponder that while the electoral college votes today.

 

Let us both ponder:

  1. Donald Trump no longer takes daily intelligence briefings.
  2. Donald Trump disputes the findings of extensive CIA investigations.
  3. Donald Trump's Secretary of State choice has close ties to Russia.
  4. Donald Trump selects climate change denier to head EPA.

And here is where you may find a host of other wolves whom Mr. Trump have chosen to guard the sheep. By sheep I mean you Trump supporters who believe he truly cares about you, the middle class, common folk, or any people or entity other than himself, corporate America, and big business. Yes...your candidate, not mine.

Edited by DrmDoc
Link to comment
Share on other sites

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/obamas-hypocrisy-on-intelligence-briefings/2016/12/19/8b1fbed0-c5f4-11e6-bf4b-2c064d32a4bf_story.html?hpid=hp_no-name_opinion-card-d%3Ahomepage%2Fstory&utm_term=.a522c4d8132e

 

 

President Obama is criticizing President-elect Donald Trump for failing to attend what The Post calls “the most exclusive, and arguably most important, daily meeting in Washington” — the Presidential Daily Briefing (PDB) — warning his successor that without the daily intelligence brief, “you are flying blind.”

This coming from the same person who skipped more than half of his daily intelligence briefings in his first term. As I reported in this space in 2012, during his first 1,225 days in office, Obama attended his daily meeting to discuss the PDB just 536 times — an attendance record of 43.8 percent. In 2011 and the first half of 2012, his attendance dropped even lower, to just over 38 percent of the time.

Trump is just following in the footsteps of Mr. Obama.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.