America under President Trump

[SpankyMcFarland]

5 hours ago, GostHacked said:

https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/trump-afghanistan-comments-1.5220664

HAHAHAH  in a week.

The nice orange man has decided not to kill ten million people. What a gent. He also offered to mediate in the Kashmir dispute which must have been well received in New Delhi.

Foreign leaders need to have Mike Pence coaching them the week before they meet the Big Man so they can practice not screaming when the gibbberish starts. 

Edited July 23, 2019 by SpankyMcFarland

[GostHacked]

11 hours ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

President Trump and Congress reach a deal on federal budget...no shut down is expected this year.   Just another day in the life of an American president.

 

Trump also seem to hold the record for number of days the government was shut down.

[Yzermandius19]

41 minutes ago, GostHacked said:

Trump also seem to hold the record for number of days the government was shut down.

And he should have held out longer and forced the Democrats to cave. The Dems are who Trump thought they were, and he let them off the hook.

Now there is an actual fail on Trump's part.

Edited July 23, 2019 by Yzermandius19

[GostHacked]

15 minutes ago, Yzermandius19 said:

And he should have held out longer and forced the Democrats to cave. The Dems are who Trump thought they were, and he let them off the hook.

Now there is an actual fail on Trump's part.

I guess it really does not matter. The government does not work for the people anyways.

[Yzermandius19]

6 minutes ago, GostHacked said:

I guess it really does not matter. The government does not work for the people anyways.

Sure it does, just not all of the people, all of the time. 

It was never suppose to work the way everyone wants it, because people want different things, and you can't please everybody.

Edited July 23, 2019 by Yzermandius19

[WestCanMan]

19 hours ago, GostHacked said:

Because there is a lot of info. All the cites are there. I am not walking you through anything.

BS. You made a ridiculous claim and you just want it to stand as a point of fact. It doesn't, period.

Quote

No the claim was the Trump stopped NKs missile tests all together. We know that is not fact.

I never said that he permanently stopped NoKo from ever performing another missile test. I said that he stopped them from testing ballistic missiles. I could have been more accurate, but accuracy is usually wasted on you because you go into deflection mode on every single point. What he did was stop Kim COLD from doing ICBM tests in a belligerent, openly hostile, threatening manner. Kim was forced to walk back his threat of launching a missile by Guam, and he lost face bigtime there. 

Quote

You now say drastically down, before you made the claim Trump stopped ALL missile tests in North Korea. Again factually incorrect.

You're overstating my reply. He stopped all tests for over a year and he stopped the aggressive macho act cold. It was a big deal for Kim to go back on his word about launching a missile by Guam.

Quote

And now you know why Iran is acting the way it is.  You don't have to like it but you sure need to recognize that.

It's like you would not even consider the USA causing terrorism in the world by invading nations or the case of Syria, supporting terrorists to push back on Assad.

Iran is the way it is because of something the USA did over 50 years ago to Iran.

The way that Iran is has everything to do with their own hostility towards everyone who isn't Shia, and especially their extreme bigotry towards Jews and Israel. Period. 

 

[GostHacked]

3 hours ago, WestCanMan said:

BS. You made a ridiculous claim and you just want it to stand as a point of fact. It doesn't, period.

That thread is 50+ pages.

3 hours ago, WestCanMan said:

I never said that he permanently stopped NoKo from ever performing another missile test.

From another one of your posts 

On 7/22/2019 at 1:15 PM, WestCanMan said:

1) Instead of giving NoKo gobs of money, like a Demmie, he put punitive sanctions against NoKo, and he got them to stop testing ballistic missiles.

The statement above conflicts with statement below. (yet a different post of yours)

On 7/22/2019 at 5:05 PM, WestCanMan said:

He stopped him for 522 days, as per your own source, and he stopped him from testing long-range ballistic missiles entirely. 

 

Which also seem to conflict with the following,

3 hours ago, WestCanMan said:

I said that he stopped them from testing ballistic missiles. I could have been more accurate, but accuracy is usually wasted on you because you go into deflection mode on every single point. What he did was stop Kim COLD from doing ICBM tests in a belligerent, openly hostile, threatening manner. Kim was forced to walk back his threat of launching a missile by Guam, and he lost face bigtime there. 

And yet another contradiction. You've done that to yourself 4-5 times in the last 3 pages.

3 hours ago, WestCanMan said:

You're overstating my reply. He stopped all tests for over a year and he stopped the aggressive macho act cold. It was a big deal for Kim to go back on his word about launching a missile by Guam.

I am slightly confused as you seem to say something different at every turn.  I'll let you clarify again before I continue.  I don't like to put words in other peoples mouths. I prefer to use their own quotes to show what they are saying.

 

[WestCanMan]

3 hours ago, GostHacked said:

That thread is 50+ pages.

From another one of your posts 

The statement above conflicts with statement below. (yet a different post of yours)

Which also seem to conflict with the following,

And yet another contradiction. You've done that to yourself 4-5 times in the last 3 pages.

I am slightly confused as you seem to say something different at every turn.  I'll let you clarify again before I continue.  I don't like to put words in other peoples mouths. I prefer to use their own quotes to show what they are saying.

 

Just learn to read GH.

[GostHacked]

12 hours ago, WestCanMan said:

Just learn to read GH.

Alright,  so what did you really mean then?  Is it my reading comprehension? Or is it that you contradicted yourself several times?

[WestCanMan]

59 minutes ago, GostHacked said:

Alright,  so what did you really mean then?  Is it my reading comprehension? Or is it that you contradicted yourself several times?

I think you should acknowledge the fact that I directly answer all of your questions while you just dodge and ignore direct questions that you don't like, for starters.

Re: this specific point, you're right, I did say that "Trump stopped their ballistic missile tests".

You choose to interpret that as me saying that he stopped them all permanently, which isn't an unreasonable interpretation, but it's not what I was actually referring to, as I told you above. That should all be really easy for you to understand.

If you recall, Kim was aggressively testing missiles and bragging about what they were going to do to the US and other countries with them, and he was threatening to launch one by Guam. 

TRUMP STOPPED HIM COLD. PERIOD. HE DIDN'T LAUNCH BY GUAM AND HE STOPPED WITH THE THREATS AND LONG-RANGE ICBM TESTS. HE DIDN'T TEST ANYTHING FOR 522 DAYS.

You can take credit for making the distinction that i should have been more specific if you want, congrats, but you're completely hung up on semantics because, as usual, you're just wrong about everything of consequence.

[Boges]

Soooo Mueller states that the only reason he didn't indict Trump is because of the opinion that a sitting President can't be indicted. 

Doesn't sound like an exoneration to me. 

A Republican Congressman with an excellent name "Ken Buck" scored a goal into his own net by actually asking Mueller if Trump could be charged with a crime after leaving office. The answer, an unequivocal "Yes". 

Edited July 24, 2019 by Boges

[GostHacked]

2 hours ago, WestCanMan said:

I think you should acknowledge the fact that I directly answer all of your questions while you just dodge and ignore direct questions that you don't like, for starters.

Re: this specific point, you're right, I did say that "Trump stopped their ballistic missile tests".

Wait, so you are complaining that I was RIGHT??

2 hours ago, WestCanMan said:

You choose to interpret that as me saying that he stopped them all permanently, which isn't an unreasonable interpretation, but it's not what I was actually referring to, as I told you above. That should all be really easy for you to understand.

Only because you conflicted your statements. That's a you problem.

2 hours ago, WestCanMan said:

If you recall, Kim was aggressively testing missiles and bragging about what they were going to do to the US and other countries with them, and he was threatening to launch one by Guam. 

TRUMP STOPPED HIM COLD. PERIOD. HE DIDN'T LAUNCH BY GUAM AND HE STOPPED WITH THE THREATS AND LONG-RANGE ICBM TESTS. HE DIDN'T TEST ANYTHING FOR 522 DAYS.

You can take credit for making the distinction that i should have been more specific if you want, congrats, but you're completely hung up on semantics because, as usual, you're just wrong about everything of consequence.

Yes I will.

[WestCanMan]

1 hour ago, GostHacked said:

Wait, so you are complaining that I was RIGHT??

Only because you conflicted your statements. That's a you problem.

Yes I will.

Congrats on your one tiny victory. Too bad that you've been on the losing side of every other debate that you've ever been in.

[GostHacked]

3 hours ago, WestCanMan said:

Congrats on your one tiny victory. Too bad that you've been on the losing side of every other debate that you've ever been in.

https://www.cnn.com/2019/07/24/politics/north-korea-projectile/index.html

Looks like North Korea is popping off again!!

 

[OftenWrong]

6 hours ago, Boges said:

Soooo Mueller states that the only reason he didn't indict Trump is because of the opinion that a sitting President can't be indicted. 

Doesn't sound like an exoneration to me. 

A Republican Congressman with an excellent name "Ken Buck" scored a goal into his own net by actually asking Mueller if Trump could be charged with a crime after leaving office. The answer, an unequivocal "Yes". 

How about this correction, issued today by Mueller after the hearings-

Quote

“I want to add one correction to my testimony this morning," Mueller said. "I want to go back to one thing that was said this morning by Mr. Lieu, who said and I quote, ‘You didn’t charge the President because of the OLC opinion. That is not the correct way to say it. As we say in the report and as I said at the opening, we did not reach a determination as to whether the President committed a crime.”

 

[DogOnPorch]

13 minutes ago, OftenWrong said:

How about this correction, issued today by Mueller after the hearings-

 

 

Let's hope the final clown has emerged from this clown-car.

[Boges]

13 hours ago, OftenWrong said:

How about this correction, issued today by Mueller after the hearings-

I think it's semantics. He didn't consider the possibility because of the opinion. AND didn't want to speculate on whether he would or not. But when you devote an entire chapter to 10 instances where Obstruction of Justice may have happened, it seems pretty clear that he thought it took place. 

The idea of the report is the get congress to act on its findings. Which means impeachment.

The more evidence comes out the more obvious it is that other Repubs actually believe Trump is innocent and are just towing the party line to save their skin from being primaried. Though Impeachment likely won't remove him from office it will force all this evidence to be made public. 

[WestCanMan]

The whole Russian Collusion fiasco is disgusting, and rightfully cost several top FBI officials their positions within the org and even their jobs and pension.

Sadly, the crooked Dems at the top who have been forcing this thing through, such as Hillary, Schiff, Nadler etc, are not losing a thing. They won't lose their pensions and they're not even losing credibility with a large percentage of the voting population because the MSM is backing them so hard.

Honestly, they should be up on stage issuing America a huge apology for repeatedly saying, in no uncertain terms, "it is clear that Trump has colluded with Russia to influence the outcome of the election" for 3 full years, dozens of times per day. Yet somehow they're still on the attack, dialling their claims back from "Trump colluded" to "Trump tried to get a guy fired for doing a whole host of things which were, with the clear benefit of hindsight, illegal, immoral and unethical". I say that because of how many times they kept going to the FISA court to get renewals, how they constantly framed unrelated arrests as "related to Russian collusion" even though they were about tax returns from the '90's, etc, how they used unrelated charges to coerce Trump associates into testifying against him, how they decided not to arrest people who were on their side and committed crimes because it would detract from the investigation, etc.

If you put a frog in cold water you can turn up the heat til he dies, but if you put it in hot water he jumps out....

That's the best analogy for this.

People who jumped on the collusion bandwagon at the outset (when the water was cold) saw all the unrelated arrests and subsequent squeeze plays as a necessary evil. They still talk about these Trump associate arrests as being "related to collusion" but they all know full-well that none of them were related to collusion at all. They overlooked Hillary's own Russian collusion as a necessary evil. They overlooked all the obvious bias from people like Strzok and Page because they weren't even informed of it by left wing news and they don't believe it when they hear it from "right wingers from helllll!!!!!". They overlooked the fact that people who were against Trump and are known to have committed serious crimes during the investigation went completely unpunished, while Trump associates who committed lesser crimes went to jail. They now know, with the benefit of hindsight, that no evidence of collusion was ever found, so there was no reason for the FISA warrant to have ever been re-issued, but they don't care that the FISA court was lied to. That's a far more serious crime than Trump's supposed obstruction.

If the Trump-haters just came on the scene now and looked back, without bias, they would instantly (feel the hot water) see the incredible level of bias and corruption and the absurdity of it all. Instead, they're trapped defending their original opinions, unable to take a serious look at this because it involves a massive loss of face.

[DogOnPorch]

1 minute ago, WestCanMan said:

The whole Russian Collusion fiasco is disgusting, and rightfully cost several top FBI officials their positions within the org and even their jobs and pension.

Sadly, the crooked Dems at the top who have been forcing this thing through, such as Hillary, Schiff, Nadler etc, are not losing a thing. They won't lose their pensions and they're not even losing credibility with a large percentage of the voting population because the MSM is backing them so hard.

Honestly, they should be up on stage issuing America a huge apology for repeatedly saying, in no uncertain terms, "it is clear that Trump has colluded with Russia to influence the outcome of the election" for 3 full years, dozens of times per day. Yet somehow they're still on the attack, dialling their claims back from "Trump colluded" to "Trump tried to get a guy fired for doing a whole host of things which were, with the clear benefit of hindsight, illegal, immoral and unethical". I say that because of how many times they kept going to the FISA court to get renewals, how they constantly framed unrelated arrests as "related to Russian collusion" even though they were about tax returns from the '90's, etc, how they used unrelated charges to coerce Trump associates into testifying against him, how they decided not to arrest people who were on their side and committed crimes because it would detract from the investigation, etc.

If you put a frog in cold water you can turn up the heat til he dies, but if you put it in hot water he jumps out....

That's the best analogy for this.

People who jumped on the collusion bandwagon at the outset (when the water was cold) saw all the unrelated arrests and subsequent squeeze plays as a necessary evil. They still talk about these Trump associate arrests as being "related to collusion" but they all know full-well that none of them were related to collusion at all. They overlooked Hillary's own Russian collusion as a necessary evil. They overlooked all the obvious bias from people like Strzok and Page because they weren't even informed of it by left wing news and they don't believe it when they hear it from "right wingers from helllll!!!!!". They overlooked the fact that people who were against Trump and are known to have committed serious crimes during the investigation went completely unpunished, while Trump associates who committed lesser crimes went to jail. They now know, with the benefit of hindsight, that no evidence of collusion was ever found, so there was no reason for the FISA warrant to have ever been re-issued, but they don't care that the FISA court was lied to. That's a far more serious crime than Trump's supposed obstruction.

If the Trump-haters just came on the scene now and looked back, without bias, they would instantly (feel the hot water) see the incredible level of bias and corruption and the absurdity of it all. Instead, they're trapped defending their original opinions, unable to take a serious look at this because it involves a massive loss of face.

 

According to CBC and Global, that was a clear Democrat victory over Trump...indeed backing these losers even in Canada.

[WestCanMan]

2 minutes ago, DogOnPorch said:

 

According to CBC and Global, that was a clear Democrat victory over Trump...indeed backing these losers even in Canada.

It's just more proof that they get their marching orders directly from CNN. 

[GostHacked]

1 hour ago, WestCanMan said:

It's just more proof that they get their marching orders directly from CNN. 

The marching orders go to CNN.  CNN is not an organization to pay attention to and take seriously anyways.

[eyeball]

1 hour ago, GostHacked said:

The marching orders go to CNN.  CNN is not an organization to pay attention to and take seriously anyways.

WCM's obsession with CNN reminds me of DOPs affinity for the Quran or Mr Canada and Pride parades.

[GostHacked]

36 minutes ago, eyeball said:

WCM's obsession with CNN reminds me of DOPs affinity for the Quran or Mr Canada and Pride parades.

This seems accurate to me.

Also hehe

https://www.cnn.com/2019/07/25/politics/trump-russia-presidential-seal-tpusa-trnd/index.html

Quote

(CNN)An audiovisual aide for conservative student group Turning Point USA was fired this week after President Donald Trump appeared on a stage in front of a parody image of the presidential seal at its Teen Student Action Summit.

 

[OftenWrong]

8 hours ago, Boges said:

I think it's semantics. He didn't consider the possibility because of the opinion. AND didn't want to speculate on whether he would or not. But when you devote an entire chapter to 10 instances where Obstruction of Justice may have happened, it seems pretty clear that he thought it took place. 

There is no conclusion after two years, that's the take away picture. All the minutia you are describing is perhaps "evidence", but not hard evidence. The reason I'm saying that is the Dems are not doing anything substantial about it. The Dems are just mouthing off. Macbeth Act 2, 2-26

Edited July 25, 2019 by OftenWrong
grammar was unlcear

[OftenWrong]

1 hour ago, GostHacked said:

This seems accurate to me.

Also hehe

https://www.cnn.com/2019/07/25/politics/trump-russia-presidential-seal-tpusa-trnd/index.html

 

How about CNN's over-the-top obsession with bad PR for Trump? I used to watch and like CNN, but don't have it now.  I hear their ratings went for a dumpster with the new format. But hey, at least we're moving on from the whole Trump/Russia/Mueller thing. That's a relief!

- Glad to see you people on the left have now found other things to criticize.