Demonstrations against Trump

[OftenWrong]

3 minutes ago, Wilber said:

I predict the American people will never see a Trump tax return or any other disclosure he is not required to make by law. 

I have no problem with a person doing only what is required by law, provided that they stay within the law. No one should be forced to do otherwise. Simply put, I believe in the rule of law. That includes when someone is subpoenaed to disclose their emails and then hastily deletes thousands of them.

You see what I mean? Hillary screwed herself. The Democratic party, screwed themselves. And in doing so handed Donald Trump the Presidency. So if there is anyone the demonstrators need to be upset with, it's Hillary and the Dems. Once they come to terms with that reality, then they can heal and move on.

[Wilber]

36 minutes ago, OftenWrong said:

I have no problem with a person doing only what is required by law, provided that they stay within the law. No one should be forced to do otherwise. Simply put, I believe in the rule of law. That includes when someone is subpoenaed to disclose their emails and then hastily deletes thousands of them.

You see what I mean? Hillary screwed herself. The Democratic party, screwed themselves. And in doing so handed Donald Trump the Presidency. So if there is anyone the demonstrators need to be upset with, it's Hillary and the Dems. Once they come to terms with that reality, then they can heal and move on.

So you don't think that Trump needs to abide by accepted standards for those running for office. Cause he's special.

This is whyTrump won't sue any of those people he threatened. He can't take a risk on what a judge might tell him he has to disclose.

You have evidence those emails were deleted after they were subpoenaed? Because destroying evidence after they were would be a crime. Conrad Black went to jail for doing just that.

 

[OftenWrong]

8 minutes ago, Wilber said:

You have evidence those emails were deleted after they were subpoenaed? Because destroying evidence after they were would be a crime.

 

You don't need to pull the "evidence" card here, if you consider this is politics. In politics it doesn't matter about real evidence, it's about the message and what people think. We all heard the message that 33,000 emails were deleted, by BleachBit software no less. Did Mrs. Clinton come out and explain about how this happened? No. She didn't have much to say about it, for a good while. That alone is a failure. Silence is admission of guilt in a public forum.She did eventually apologize that she "didn't know". Thats not an excuse, since ignorance of the law is not an exception to the law. And that the Secretary of State "didn't know" that what she did was a security risk in this day and age is rather hard to believe. Here is a video of Hillary Clinton giving a lecture to State Dept. employees on Cyber Security-

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TDBix0AlJ2E

But that was not the only serious problem she has with her campaign when it came to demonstrating trust and integrity. I think when it came out that she received debate questions beforehand, and made use of them, that was a serious error. When CNN dismissed Donna Brazile, that was "evidence" to the public that something rotten had happened. That is nothing more than sleaze.

Not saying Donald Trump is above any of this mind you. I have no skin in this game, don't care anyway other than the fascinating social commentary it provides about the left vs. right dichotomy, what it says about us as a society.

[Wilber]

Wait a minute, you are all about rule of law, evidence and stuff when it comes to what Trump needs to disclose. Now silence is an admission of guilt for Clinton.  Wa happened.

[?Impact]

42 minutes ago, Wilber said:

Wait a minute, you are all about rule of law, evidence and stuff when it comes to what Trump needs to disclose. Now silence is an admission of guilt for Clinton.  Wa happened.

 

Obviously OftenWrong is living up to his moniker.

[OftenWrong]

2 hours ago, Wilber said:

Wait a minute, you are all about rule of law, evidence and stuff when it comes to what Trump needs to disclose. Now silence is an admission of guilt for Clinton.  Wa happened.

Yes I see your point. But I also said evidence doesn't matter in an election cycle, it's about optics. Might I also add, I don't support either candidate whole heartedly, I don't trust anyone implicitly in the game of politics. So don't get me wrong, if Donald Trump screws up, it will not be a shock nor a disappointed to me.

As to my opinion of Hillary Clinton, whether she's guilty in the email scandal or not, my guess is probably. But would prefer that the real truth comes out, why the emails are missing, or found by accident on someone else's computer. Just so we understand each other Wilber, I am not partisan and don't care much either way. I am happy to listen to your views.

[bush_cheney2004]

2 hours ago, OftenWrong said:

Not saying Donald Trump is above any of this mind you. I have no skin in this game, don't care anyway other than the fascinating social commentary it provides about the left vs. right dichotomy, what it says about us as a society.

 

Doesn't matter what Trump did; he bragged that he could shoot somebody on 5th Avenue and not lose any votes.   Trump was the smartest guy/gal in the room.

[Argus]

17 hours ago, OftenWrong said:

In that case, same as a Clinton presidency. In other words, a member of the corrupt, power mongering elite. It's the status quo. As Donald Trump would say, what have you got to lose?

No, unlike the Clinton administration's vast corruption, this will actually be real and provable. 

[Argus]

4 hours ago, Wilber said:

I predict the American people will never see a Trump tax return or any other disclosure he is not required to make by law. 

Deutsche bank is negotiating with the US government over a huge multi-billion dollar fine it's likely to impose for its illegal mortgage lending activities leading up to the 2008 financial near-collapse. Now comes Trump, who owes them $300 million. I suspect someone is going to be getting in touch with someone and suggesting the contract could be quietly renegotiated to give Trump a much more favorable deal if the Justice Department goes easy on them.

[Wilber]

59 minutes ago, OftenWrong said:

Yes I see your point. But I also said evidence doesn't matter in an election cycle, it's about optics. Might I also add, I don't support either candidate whole heartedly, I don't trust anyone implicitly in the game of politics. So don't get me wrong, if Donald Trump screws up, it will not be a shock nor a disappointed to me.

As to my opinion of Hillary Clinton, whether she's guilty in the email scandal or not, my guess is probably. But would prefer that the real truth comes out, why the emails are missing, or found by accident on someone else's computer. Just so we understand each other Wilber, I am not partisan and don't care much either way. I am happy to listen to your views.

You are definitely partisan on this issue and so am I.  The optics didn't matter for Trump, only for Clinton. In hindsight, I actually think he was right when he said he could walk out in the street and shoot someone and people would still vote for him. Trump and Co will be the only ones under scrutiny now, we'll see how they stand up to it.

[WestCoastRunner]

On 2016-11-11 at 4:29 PM, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

OK....and law enforcement is putting them on notice that riot and vandalism is illegal, and they will be arrested/prosecuted.

Ok. 

[segnosaur]

On 11/13/2016 at 1:58 PM, Argus said:

Deutsche bank is negotiating with the US government over a huge multi-billion dollar fine it's likely to impose for its illegal mortgage lending activities leading up to the 2008 financial near-collapse. Now comes Trump, who owes them $300 million. I suspect someone is going to be getting in touch with someone and suggesting the contract could be quietly renegotiated to give Trump a much more favorable deal if the Justice Department goes easy on them.

But, but... Clinton Foundation! Pay for Play! Goldman Sachs! Trump is squeaky clean I tell you! He's not beholden to anyone!

(Did I miss any of the regular anti-Hillary rhetoric?)

[bush_cheney2004]

Great Daily Mail headline:

 

Memo to millennials, that awful feeling you've got is called losing. It happens. If you want to know how to win, stop whinging for a bit and learn some lessons from Trump

Quote

Cheer up, American millennials!

I mean, seriously, CHEER THE **** UP!

Oh, I know you’ve had a rough week ever since Donald Trump won the election.

But it’s time to get a grip.

STOP crying.

STOP taking personal days off work to ‘process’ what happened.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3942278/PIERS-MORGAN-Memo-millennials-awful-feeling-ve-got-called-losing-happens-want-know-win-stop-whinging-bit-learn-lessons-Trump.html

 

 

 

Edited November 16, 2016 by bush_cheney2004

[taxme]

On 11/9/2016 at 11:37 PM, taxme said:

Well, the sore loser democrats are at it as expected. There have been many demonstrations in many cities in America. All demonstrating against Trump becoming President. So, just what do they think this will accomplish? Do they think that Trump is going to say that he does not want to be President so as to please those democratic losers. The globalist elite establishment is not going to take Trumps win lying down, and this just may be the beginning of more to come from that globalist cabal. I guess that they have a lot to lose with Trump as President so they must do whatever they can to try to make his Presidency a nightmare. I suppose eventually the losers will accept their defeat and learn to live with their defeat. Maybe what the people who voted for Trump should do now is also get out there and in the streets and show those losers there support for Trump. Why is there so much intolerance shown by the left every time they lose a battle. 

What the losers should be doing is to take a wait and see approach. They may find that Trump will work for them also.  

Well it looks like George Soros is at it again. He is going to have a meeting with another bunch of losers in hopes of trying to get President elect Donald Trump from becoming President. Boy, these zionist elite banksters are really in a panic, aren't they? They must have a lot to lose if Trump becomes President. To that I say good, let them eat cake.  

[Topaz]

Hey BC I've got a friendly ? for u. The news is saying that the people that are protesting never voted and is the reason behind that is, they are not citizens as yet and therefore can't OR is there something else going on?

[bush_cheney2004]

3 hours ago, Topaz said:

Hey BC I've got a friendly ? for u. The news is saying that the people that are protesting never voted and is the reason behind that is, they are not citizens as yet and therefore can't OR is there something else going on?

 

I don't think it matters because many citizens that voted for Obama did not bother to vote for Clinton.   Legal resident aliens have the right to protest.

[segnosaur]

18 hours ago, Topaz said:

Hey BC I've got a friendly ? for u. The news is saying that the people that are protesting never voted and is the reason behind that is, they are not citizens as yet and therefore can't OR is there something else going on?

Just out of curiosity, what news sources are you referring to?

Is this another example of alt-right sources making stuff up for gullible people?

[DogOnPorch]

24 minutes ago, segnosaur said:

Just out of curiosity, what news sources are you referring to?

Is this another example of alt-right sources making stuff up for gullible people?

Or is the MSM making stuff up for gullible people?

[Rue]

19 hours ago, taxme said:

Well it looks like George Soros is at it again. He is going to have a meeting with another bunch of losers in hopes of trying to get President elect Donald Trump from becoming President. Boy, these zionist elite banksters are really in a panic, aren't they? They must have a lot to lose if Trump becomes President. To that I say good, let them eat cake.  

First of all George Soros is as anti Israel as it gets but why let that get into your anti semitic tirade.

Next Who are these Zionist elite bankers who are in a panic? Name them.

I have come to expect given your posts and who you refer to as credible sources for your anti Jewish tirades such as Brother Nathaniel that you just can't resist making  comments designed to regurgitate the Jewish banker world conspiracy anti semitic bilge masked with the word Zionist.

Two things-if you think couching your hatred with the word Zionist makes it less anti semitic you are wrong. Using the word Zionist as a code word for Jew anyone can see.

Next Zionists are neither elite nor do they own banks. They are people who support the right of Jews to their own country. They don't own banks and many are not even Jewish so take your pathetic, lowly anti semitic slurs and go to some hate site if this is what you have to offer.

Next you better swallow some reality. If you really believe in Jewish conspiracies and want to pathetically throw them out explain to everyone how it is Trumps' daughteris married to a Jew, both his son's are married to Jews, his top executives in his company are Jews, his other daughter is engaged to a Jew and surrounded by all these Jews in his work and personal life, suddenly now "Zionist" elite banks want him out.

What an idiotic and odious reference and one I fully expected from you.

Go on explain how surrounded by Jews, they have Zionist bankers panicking over him. Then explain how Mr. Soros who is a lobbyist for the government of Iran is a Zionist elite.

You spew bilge on this forum and try pass it off as discourse on Donald Trump. Your brother Nathaniel by the way claims Trump is a Satanic Jew. You better get with the program. Call Brother Nathaniel.

 

 

 

 

[Argus]

19 hours ago, taxme said:

Well it looks like George Soros is at it again. He is going to have a meeting with another bunch of losers in hopes of trying to get President elect Donald Trump from becoming President. Boy, these zionist elite banksters are really in a panic, aren't they? They must have a lot to lose if Trump becomes President. To that I say good, let them eat cake.  

Hey, my US bank stocks have been going up and up since Trump got elected! You still think Trump is against bankers?

Or do you mean Jews? What do you think of the power Trump's ultra-orthodox Jewish son in law has lately? Maybe he'll be the next President!

Edited November 17, 2016 by Argus

[Topaz]

2 hours ago, segnosaur said:

Just out of curiosity, what news sources are you referring to?

Is this another example of alt-right sources making stuff up for gullible people?

To me, some of the people protesting but didn't vote  make no sense, especially if they knew what Trump was saying and how many protesting are not citizens but illegals?

[Wilber]

27 minutes ago, Topaz said:

To me, some of the people protesting but didn't vote  make no sense, especially if they knew what Trump was saying and how many protesting are not citizens but illegals?

How many? Make up whatever you want. That's today's reality.

 

One Russians View

[Bonam]

39 minutes ago, Wilber said:

How many? Make up whatever you want. That's today's reality.

 

One Russians View

The last point made in the article is important. The opposition to Trump largely has a very divisive message of race/gender based privilege/victimhood which inherently casts certain demographics as oppressors and others as victims. This message inherently can only appeal to a portion of the population, it is not a unifying message but a divisive one. Until the left forsakes its shrill divisive rhetoric of identity politics, they will have trouble assembling a majority that can defeat populist right wing movements. 

The difference in the Democrat's message between 2008 and 2016 explains everything, honestly:

2008: "There are no red states or blue states, there are only the United States" -Obama

2016: "The people in the red states are racists, sexists, and bigots". -Hillary's supporters

Edited November 17, 2016 by Bonam

[Wilber]

Trump an Putin are all about identity politics, that's what made them successful. I guess you just skipped to the end of the article.

[segnosaur]

1 hour ago, Topaz said:

Just out of curiosity, what news sources are you referring to?

To me, some of the people protesting but didn't vote  make no sense, especially if they knew what Trump was saying and how many protesting are not citizens but illegals?

I agree that anyone who didn't vote is partially culpable for Trump's success, and anyone protesting after not voting deserves scorn.

But a specific claim was made that there were news articles that talked about non-voters and illegal immigrants in the protests. I wanted to know where those news articles were.