WestCanMan Posted January 8, 2019 Report Share Posted January 8, 2019 7 hours ago, Iznogoud said: Wait and see. I have little doubt that this awful president is going to be utterly humiliated and his followers are going to end up feeling like fools. BTW I don't have to prove anything, the special counsel and multiple other legal officials are going to do that. So far you have rejected all evidence from multiple sources including some of the most respected news agencies in the world. I thought Rolling Stone might put it on a level you could understand, but I guess There you go again, referencing evidence that no one in the world has shown. "The most respected news agencies in the world" are still referencing evidence that has yet to be presented. They forgot to cover high-profile members of the FBI being demoted and fired. How much respect should I have for them, exactly? Quote I was wrong. Smartest thing that you ever said, but I still had to take it out of context so that it would make sense. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Iznogoud Posted January 9, 2019 Author Report Share Posted January 9, 2019 6 hours ago, WestCanMan said: There you go again, referencing evidence that no one in the world has shown. "The most respected news agencies in the world" are still referencing evidence that has yet to be presented. They forgot to cover high-profile members of the FBI being demoted and fired. How much respect should I have for them, exactly? Smartest thing that you ever said, but I still had to take it out of context so that it would make sense. Sneer all you want. Trump is going down. You are going to have to find another charlatan to idolize. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Iznogoud Posted January 9, 2019 Author Report Share Posted January 9, 2019 Don't you just hate it when the news agencies you hate dare to report the facts? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SMitchell Posted January 9, 2019 Report Share Posted January 9, 2019 (edited) 19 minutes ago, Iznogoud said: Don't you just hate it when the news agencies you hate dare to report the facts? No I don't hate that at all. I would love it if a news agency would report the facts, all the facts, and nothing but the facts. Not just the facts that support their agenda. And no blatant lies, like the ones I see on cnn.com all the time. There is no harder-core right winger than me, but I will happily admit that I hate Fox's bias just as much as the dozens of liberal-biased outlets. But FNC is a necessary evil for the time being. Edited January 9, 2019 by SMitchell Speling Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WestCanMan Posted January 9, 2019 Report Share Posted January 9, 2019 2 hours ago, Iznogoud said: Sneer all you want. Trump is going down. You are going to have to find another charlatan to idolize. I’m not idolizing him. You know that was an idiotic comment but I think you’re ok with that. You just need to get your head around one serious fact: if the investigation does not come out with a significant amount of actual evidence to justify a two year smear campaign then a very serious crime against the entire democracy has been committed. Put your petty hatred aside and look at the big picture. This can happen to anyone if it’s happening with no evidence, and we’re being told that unrelated arrests are “evidence” domehow. That’s crap. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Iznogoud Posted January 9, 2019 Author Report Share Posted January 9, 2019 5 hours ago, WestCanMan said: I’m not idolizing him. You know that was an idiotic comment but I think you’re ok with that. You just need to get your head around one serious fact: if the investigation does not come out with a significant amount of actual evidence to justify a two year smear campaign then a very serious crime against the entire democracy has been committed. Put your petty hatred aside and look at the big picture. This can happen to anyone if it’s happening with no evidence, and we’re being told that unrelated arrests are “evidence” domehow. That’s crap. Here is how bad it has become for Trump. Before his address to the nation a British betting site took bets on how many lies his speech would contain. Bookmakers taking bets on number of falsehoods Trump makes in speech https://www.reviewjournal.com/news/politics-and-government/bookmakers-taking-bets-on-number-of-falsehoods-trump-makes-in-speech-1568753/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boges Posted January 9, 2019 Report Share Posted January 9, 2019 https://www.businessinsider.com/manafort-lawyers-accidentally-reveal-alleged-lies-mueller-ukraine-russia-2019-1 Paul Manafort's idiot lawyers forgot to redact information in a court filing that reveals he shared polling data with a Russian official. Now this reveal was a mistake! It wasn't something that was even supposed to be public yet. Imagine what we don't know that Mueller does. He clearly knew that Manafort was lying about his Russian connections while being a the head of Trump's campaign. In fact, 16 people in the Trump campaign had contact with Russia. COLLUSION!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BubberMiley Posted January 9, 2019 Report Share Posted January 9, 2019 Not to mention the total amateur stupidity of how they accidentally released the information. Reminds me of how they accidentally released information last time when they didn't realize Word files retain their history. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WestCanMan Posted January 9, 2019 Report Share Posted January 9, 2019 6 hours ago, Iznogoud said: Here is how bad it has become for Trump. Before his address to the nation a British betting site took bets on how many lies his speech would contain. Bookmakers taking bets on number of falsehoods Trump makes in speech https://www.reviewjournal.com/news/politics-and-government/bookmakers-taking-bets-on-number-of-falsehoods-trump-makes-in-speech-1568753/ I just saw ten seconds of Schumer's reply. It was THE MAIN THRUST of his argument and it was an outright lie. He basically said that Trump is holding the country hostage because Trump's not getting what he wants. The truth is, he's extending the shutdown because he's not getting what the electorate chose. You see, a government was elected with a border wall as a main campaign promise. So if the President is trying to fulfill it, that's not personal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 9, 2019 Report Share Posted January 9, 2019 29 minutes ago, WestCanMan said: I just saw ten seconds of Schumer's reply. It was THE MAIN THRUST of his argument and it was an outright lie. He basically said that Trump is holding the country hostage because Trump's not getting what he wants. The truth is, he's extending the shutdown because he's not getting what the electorate chose. You see, a government was elected with a border wall as a main campaign promise. So if the President is trying to fulfill it, that's not personal. The electorate chose a wall paid for by Mexico. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WestCanMan Posted January 9, 2019 Report Share Posted January 9, 2019 6 hours ago, bcsapper said: The electorate chose a wall paid for by Mexico. Lol. Touché sapper. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jimwd Posted January 10, 2019 Report Share Posted January 10, 2019 Manafort bombshell..collusion now confirmed . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OftenWrong Posted January 10, 2019 Report Share Posted January 10, 2019 8 hours ago, bcsapper said: The electorate chose a wall paid for by Mexico. Which means what exactly? That Mexico will bring a wheelbarrow full of cash to the White House? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 10, 2019 Report Share Posted January 10, 2019 16 minutes ago, OftenWrong said: Which means what exactly? That Mexico will bring a wheelbarrow full of cash to the White House? You'd have to ask DT what he meant by that. He's the one who campaigned on it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OftenWrong Posted January 10, 2019 Report Share Posted January 10, 2019 16 minutes ago, bcsapper said: You'd have to ask DT what he meant by that. He's the one who campaigned on it. "The president is now arguing that Mexico will pay indirectly through increased trade and economic growth." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 10, 2019 Report Share Posted January 10, 2019 Just now, OftenWrong said: "The president is now arguing that Mexico will pay indirectly through increased trade and economic growth." I wonder why he never used that on the hustings. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OftenWrong Posted January 10, 2019 Report Share Posted January 10, 2019 2 minutes ago, bcsapper said: I wonder why he never used that on the hustings. Throughout the campaign whenever he claimed "Mexico is gonna pay", I always assumed it would be through a mechanism like this, economic trade. I have no idea if his claim about redeeming the cost through trade imbalance is true or economically sensible, but this is what the US president is saying. I never expected Mexicans to bring a wheelbarrow of cash to the White House. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 10, 2019 Report Share Posted January 10, 2019 3 minutes ago, OftenWrong said: Throughout the campaign whenever he claimed "Mexico is gonna pay", I always assumed it would be through a mechanism like this, economic trade. I have no idea if his claim about redeeming the cost through trade imbalance is true or economically sensible, but this is what the US president is saying. I never expected Mexicans to bring a wheelbarrow of cash to the White House. Throughout the campaign whenever he claimed "Mexico is gonna pay", I always assumed he was just lying. I would suggest the majority of those who voted for him were thinking about the wheelbarrow. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogOnPorch Posted January 10, 2019 Report Share Posted January 10, 2019 8 minutes ago, bcsapper said: Throughout the campaign whenever he claimed "Mexico is gonna pay", I always assumed he was just lying. I would suggest the majority of those who voted for him were thinking about the wheelbarrow. Tariffs on Mexican assembled autos and such, I believe. Things have changed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 10, 2019 Report Share Posted January 10, 2019 2 minutes ago, DogOnPorch said: Tariffs on Mexican assembled autos and such, I believe. Things have changed. Couldn't the tariffs be put in place without a wall? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogOnPorch Posted January 10, 2019 Report Share Posted January 10, 2019 1 minute ago, bcsapper said: Couldn't the tariffs be put in place without a wall? Tariffs dunna stop thousands trying to hop the border each day. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 10, 2019 Report Share Posted January 10, 2019 1 minute ago, DogOnPorch said: Tariffs dunna stop thousands trying to hop the border each day. We're drifting. I don't think a wall will do much in that regard either, but the original point was that DT campaigned not just on a wall, but on one that wouldn't cost anything. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogOnPorch Posted January 10, 2019 Report Share Posted January 10, 2019 As for walls, I've seen a few over the years. Hadrian's Wall still impresses me. It wasn't designed to keep out a lone single Pict/Scot...but rather designed to prevent the passing of MANY Picts/Scots and any horses. Cleverly spaced Roman forts along the wall were where the Roman soldiers actually hung-out and lived. Even as late as the 18th century, Hadrian's Wall was a major impediment to Scottish Border Revers who were after sheep and cattle across the line. Quote We're drifting. Either way...walls work. Don't let Chuck Schumer tell you otherwise...he was for a BIG wall back in 2009. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jimwd Posted January 10, 2019 Report Share Posted January 10, 2019 4 minutes ago, DogOnPorch said: As for walls, I've seen a few over the years. Hadrian's Wall still impresses me. It wasn't designed to keep out a lone single Pict/Scot...but rather designed to prevent the passing of MANY Picts/Scots and any horses. Cleverly spaced Roman forts along the wall were where the Roman soldiers actually hung-out and lived. Even as late as the 18th century, Hadrian's Wall was a major impediment to Scottish Border Revers who were after sheep and cattle across the line. Either way...walls work. Don't let Chuck Schumer tell you otherwise...he was for a BIG wall back in 2009. Ever heard of a ladder ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogOnPorch Posted January 10, 2019 Report Share Posted January 10, 2019 Just now, Jimwd said: Ever heard of a ladder ? The proposed wall along the US-Mexican border will be unassailable by ladder. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.