dmacleod comments

Posted in: Seeking support for a wall, Trump plans prime-time speech, border visit See in context

I wasn’t talking about that,

Oh, it was pretty clear that you were, and you got caught making another false claim. Don't try and move the goalposts.

the WH made sure that and tax returns will delivered promptly,

What? The WH made sure of what exactly?

I was talking about the bigger legislation the Dems have won’t pass McConnell’s desk-DOA or until the Dems give Trump the money for the wall.

So, you are admitting that Senate obstructionism will prevent any legislation passed by the House from getting signed into law, therefore making it the Republican-led Senate that cannot pass anything instead of the Democrats. As far as Trump getting his demands for a wall, it ain't going to happen. The Democrats can keep passing smaller bills offering to fund some of the very agencies that the Senate will refuse to vote on, putting those Senators in a very difficult spot since they would be refusing to pay those federal workers and others affected by the shutdown, so it's on the Republican senators and not the Democrats. There are Republican senators already wavering on this obstructionism, but I hope that McConnell keeps it up which will ensure that the Republicans will also lose the Senate during the next election, so please, keep cheering him on.

And the Democrats can’t even get anything through the Senate, ultimate fai-lee-ur.

Yes, a failure on the Republicans' part since it is not up to the Democrats in the House to get enough votes in the Senate to pass their bills. It's up to the Senate to take a vote on the bills--that is if their so-called leader will let them.

5 ( +5 / -0 )

Posted in: Seeking support for a wall, Trump plans prime-time speech, border visit See in context

Oh, what will the Democrats do? Already freshly sworn in and already can’t get any legislation through. Man!

Factually incorrect as usual. The new House was sworn in only a week ago, and they've already passed a package of bills (last Thursday--January 3-- 2nd day on the job) to reopen the government, so your claim is false. It's now up to the Republican-led Senate to do their jobs and put it to a vote, which no thanks to obstructionist Mitch McConnell, they won't get to do, so if you want to blame anyone for not getting legislation passed, look no further than the U.S. Senate.

5 ( +5 / -0 )

Posted in: Trump holds firm on border wall; offers steel option as compromise See in context

This is it, its also whats really setting the Democrats and their supporters off the fact he is actually honouring his promises  . . .

Really? He had two years to start construction on his wall, and yet nothing happened. Is that keeping a promise? Remember, his party controlled the House, the Senate, had a majority on the Supreme Court, and held a large number of governorships and state legislatures, and yet you are blaming the Democrats (who were in the minority and had very little power) that it's now somehow their fault? Huh? Please explain the logic underlying that conclusion.

Next, he promised that Mexico would pay for it, but now he's forcing the American taxpayers to do it. Is that keeping a promise?

4 ( +5 / -1 )

Posted in: Trump holds firm on border wall; offers steel option as compromise See in context

  . . . this is the thought process of the liberal mind at work.

also do you generalize and stereotype much?

The answer to that question is simple: The narrower the mind, the broader the statement.

5 ( +5 / -0 )

Posted in: Democrat Warren announces challenge to Trump in 2020 See in context

Mueller Ain't Got Anything  . . .

Try one of these instead:

Moscow's Agenda Governing America

Moscow's American Gangster Association

My Administration's Going Away

Missed Another Golfing Appointment

3 ( +5 / -2 )

Posted in: More Americans blame Trump for government shutdown: poll See in context

I'm free to express my opinion that polls such as the one discussed in this topic are eschewed to reflect a desired result. Not necessarily a true gauge of public sentiment.

Agreed.

And you're equally free to express your disagreement with the Electoral College, among other things.

Agreed.

Doesn't change the fact that President Trump won the Electoral College and his opponent failed to win in key states which President Obama had handily won. That in a nutshell is why she lost. By less than a 100,000 votes but nonetheless a loss.

Agreed.

Start with the premise that Donald J. Trump is the duly-elected President of the United States, then we can all have a civil discussion of what he succeeded or failed to achieve in two years, despite not having a super majority of 60 votes in the Senate - including the reasons for a shutdown, the lowest rates of unemployment for females, Blacks and Hispanics, 3-4% economic growth, deregulation, tax cuts, combating opioids, energy production, ISIS, defense and veterans affairs.

Sounds fair to me provided that you are willing to support your beliefs with actual facts from credible sources instead of the usual empty rhetoric that dominates these types of threads. Also, I'm hoping that you can point to specific policies or legislation which you believe is evidence for your statistics because in my prior debates with others, they haven't been able to give them.

Let the games begin.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

Posted in: More Americans blame Trump for government shutdown: poll See in context

Calling a sample of less that two thousand voters - probably mostly from both "left" coasts simply isn't representative, wouldn't you agree?

Agreed.

So stop crying in your broken dreams about a duly-elected President in power who may not reflect your political views.

I'm not crying about anything. I simply pointed out an inconvenient fact for those Trump supporters such as yourself who like to bring up the number of votes that Trump got in the 2016 election in order to somehow de-legitimize a poll number or result that they don't like about a given issue. Remember, YOU were the one who brought this up--not me. Therefore, if you decided to poll both the 63 million who voted for Trump and the 66 million people who didn't vote for Trump, would you accept the result?

45 presidents won the electoral college; 45 wannabe losers fell short. Simple as that.

No, it's not because you conveniently didn't mention that five of those 45 presidents didn't win the popular vote and therefore didn't truly reflect the will of the people, and before you give me a lecture about how the U.S. Presidential election system works with the Electoral College, I am well aware of how it works. However, it doesn't mean that I have to agree with it and will speak out against it whenever I like. Given the disastrous results of the last two Republican "Electoral College winners," I'd say that the criticism against it is understandable.

Poll or no poll, this latest stunt by Trump will just add to the sad fact that he's the first president to preside over a government shutdown while his party controlled the House, Senate, and White House. He's also the first president to preside over a shutdown on the first anniversary of his inauguration which was also the earliest shutdown ever in a presidency.

4 ( +4 / -0 )

Posted in: More Americans blame Trump for government shutdown: poll See in context

63 million American voters ask, why aren't we ever "polled"?

And 66 million American voters respond, "Because our voices were not listened to in 2016 by an outdated system which has given us two of the biggest disasters as presidents in the last twenty years--both of whom were "elected" by the Electoral College and not the will of the people, so stop crying about not being "polled" because the American public and the world ended up being screwed.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Posted in: On Christmas Eve, Trump questions child about belief in Santa See in context

This just in from the U.S.:

Twas the night before Christmas

When in the White House

The President tweeted,

Ignoring his spouse.

“No leader ever

has been so first rate. 

I’m better than Santa

And America’s great!”

He decided to nestle

All snug in his bed

While border wall visions

danced in his head.

When on the South Lawn

There arose such a clatter

He turned on Fox News to see

What was the matter.

When what to his wondering

Eyes in a daze

Came all his “best people” 

In three different sleighs.

Now Tillerson, Mattis

Now Kelly, McMaster,

Now Preibus and Sessions!

Trump said, “A disaster.”

Now Flynn, Porter, Pruitt,

Hicks, Bannon, and Price,

Omarosa and Zinke!

Trump said, “They were nice.”

Then a grand golden sleigh

It flew ’round the bend

Now Vladimir Putin . . . 

Trump said, “My best friend.”

Trump called Kellyanne,

She told him a rumor:

A fourth sleigh was coming,

Pelosi and Schumer.

Trump drew in his head

And was turning around,

When right down the chimney

Someone came with a bound.

Not Chuck and not Nancy

His nose like a cherry

A stranger appeared

A man legendary.

“My name’s Robert Mueller

I’m hardly an elf.”

A prosecutor, special

In spite of himself.

And out of his bundle

A present appeared.

The label said “Report,”

And Trump he just sneered.

“A witch hunt!” Trump yelled

As he came to the brink.

“Bah teetotaling — 

Give me a drink!”

He looked at the gift card,

Holding his beer.

The message said, “Open this

Sometime next year.”

And so we will wait

To find what is inside

We’ll know who was good and

We’ll know who has lied.

The three Christmas sleighs

At once gave a whistle,

And away they all flew, like

The down of a thistle.

“The year’s almost over,”

Trump said with a frown.

“It’s 2018 —

It’s time to shut down.”

The stock market falters

The world’s in a tizzy,

Meanwhile back home

We shop ’til we’re dizzy.

We fret and we worry,

We question the wall —

Now dash away, dash away,

Dash away all!

We hope that the future

Is joyous and bright,

Merry Christmas to all

And to all a good night.

12 ( +12 / -0 )

Posted in: With no deal, U.S. government shutdown likely to drag on past Christmas See in context

...stock market booming....

Pretty much, by next year, we’re looking at about a solid 3% growth after the market readjust itself. I’m in it for the long haul, baby!!

Fiction! The DOW has lost 5% of its value this year, and this past week, it had the worst week since 1931. It had several days where it dropped over 500 points. I don't call that "booming" unless you are referring to a destructive explosion.

https://www.denverpost.com/2018/10/24/stock-market-plunges-2018-gains-wiped-out/

It's only going to get a lot worse as the budget chaos threatens to add more to an already volatile market.

10 ( +11 / -1 )

Posted in: With no deal, U.S. government shutdown likely to drag on past Christmas See in context

"Leadership: Whatever happens, you're responsible. If it doesn't happen, you're responsible." -- Donald Trump, Twitter, November 9, 2013 (4:01 a.m.)

12 ( +12 / -0 )

Posted in: U.S. government partially shuts down in fight over Trump's border wall See in context

Trump tried to blame Democrats.

“Problems start from the top, and they have to get solved from the top, and the President’s the leader, and he’s got to get everybody in a room, and he’s got to lead. And he doesn’t do that, he doesn’t like doing that, that’s not his strength. And that’s why you have this horrible situation going on in Washington. It’s a very, very bad thing and it’s very embarrassing worldwide.” --Donald Trump - Fox & Friends, 20 September 2013

9 ( +11 / -2 )

Posted in: Cohen claims Trump knew hush money payments wrong See in context

Both parties do it.

No, both parties don’t do it. Name one piece of legislation or one instance of the Democrats engaging in voter suppression since the Voting Rights Act was enacted in the 1960s. In contrast, I can name quite a few examples of Republicans doing it and getting caught in the most recent election. Want some examples? Google Florida, Texas, Nevada, and Georgia for just a small taste of the shameful tactics they employed in order to put their finger on the election scales.  I won’t even get into the voter fraud case in North Carolina where the election results in one district still haven’t been certified because a Republican operative by the name of Leslie McCrae Dowless was caught “harvesting” and then throwing away absentee ballots from Democratic voters. As far as gerrymandering goes, take a look at what happened in Pennsylvania after a judge ruled that the districts needed to be redrawn. The GOP got hammered.

 McConnell already stated he’s not going to play with the Democrats . . .

This is nothing new. However, the American voters are no longer going to put up with his obstructionism.

But at the same time there are millions of people that think the government shouldn’t be involved in the healthcare business, this is another reason why the courts ruled that that crap was unconstitutional.

Nope, the courts did not rule “that crap was unconstitutional.”  Review the rulings by The Supreme Court in the 2012 “National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius, “ as well as the 2015 decision where the court ruled 6-3 in favor of the ACA and its constitutionality.

Trump has an over 80% favorable approval among Republicans . . .

Who are in the minority. The Republicans just got defeated by 9 million votes (a record) overall in the most recent election, so your statistic is misleading.

As an incumbent and a President who overhauled the tax code

Which did nothing for the average person and only helped the .1%. I also find it interesting that many Republicans didn’t use it as an election issue in the last election. I wonder why.

brought back business investments

You mean like in what GM just did in Ohio?

having a GDP over 4% putting more money into the economy, translating that into bonuses for corporations and to pass on the tax cuts for their employees, lowest black unemployment, lowest unemployment overall, business investments up

So please explain why the Democrats gained 40 House seats, 337 state legislative seats, 7 governorships, and 7 statehouses if things are as rosy as you claim. Shouldn’t we all be running around barefoot through the fields playing pan flutes and singing songs of praise for all of the so-called accomplishments that you listed? Sorry, but the American voters aren’t buying it—they can’t afford to, especially after the stock market took yet another tumble today.

Finally, Trump’s legal woes will continue after the Democrats in the House take over next month. The convictions and guilty pleas of Flynn, Gates, Manafort, Papadopoulos, Cohen, and many others have demonstrated that this presidency is on very shaky ground. Any hopes of re-election in 2020 are getting bleaker and are only going to get worse as things drag on.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

Posted in: Cohen claims Trump knew hush money payments wrong See in context

But thanks to the President they were able to gain seats in the Senate which is a big plus and a deep sigh of relief.

Actually, you can thank voter suppression and gerrymandering for those results, especially in North Dakota, Georgia, Florida, and North Carolina. Kindly explain how the Republicans got rewarded with 65% of the legislative seats in Wisconsin, but they only got 45% of the vote? Is that how democracy is supposed to work? However, despite all of their shenanigans, the GOP only picked up a grand total of two additional Senate seats, and they should have picked up more considering all of the seats that were up for grab were in states that Trump won by double-digits in 2016, so no, Trump had very little to do with it. The good news is, now that the Democrats are back in charge of many state legislatures, future voter suppression tactics will be a lot more difficult for the GOP to pull off. Also, in 2020, there will be a lot more vulnerable Republican Senate seats on the line, so enjoy your small majority while it lasts.

They won’t get a lot done because the Senate won’t sign any legislation from the Democrats if they think it’s a) disastrous for the country. b) they try to block any GOP legislation that will come through, which means, we will see a lot of gridlock, won’t help the Democrats especially if they put all their eggs in one basket (which they generally do) and focus solely on impeaching this President and with a stronger GOP Senate majority, they need to be able to pass some of their legislation through or they’re toast in 2 years.

Nope, all the Democrats have to do is continue to show that any gridlock will be on the shoulders of the obstructionist Republicans should they decide to block or mess around with legislation that the majority of the voters who put the Democrats in charge are expecting to pass. So, should the GOP decide to kill any more of the ACA or shut down the government (something that Trump has already said would be "on him" if it happens) then the GOP will be the toasty ones.

As far as taking things away, well, ask the Republicans how that worked out when they threatened to take away healthcare (something that the Democrats ran on).

You can make the exact same argument about impeachment, ask the Republicans how that went for them.

Not really since many people are very concerned about losing their healthcare or not being able to get any at all, so no it's not the same as a bungled impeachment attempt. However, should impeachment come up because of blatant misuses of power as well as hard evidence that the president and his minions committed high crimes and other offenses, it is not going to be the same as the last time when the Republicans tried to rid of a president over an affair with an intern. I'd wager that a lot of people are going to care if they learn that their president is a traitor, a criminal, and a mentally unstable individual who is grossly unfit for office and needs to be removed ASAP rather than trying to get rid of him because of his inappropriate extra curricular activities.

I agree, so this notion that if Trump gets indicted and the GOP will remove is the joke of all jokes . . .

No, the GOP will get punished in 2020 for refusing to perform their Constitutional duty should enough evidence get produced as to warrant impeachment and removal from office. Go back and see what happened to Nixon--and don't give me any of this nonsense that what Trump might be facing is not the same as Nixon because if you look at Nixon's articles of impeachment (obstruction of justice, abuse of power, etc.), you'll see that history is repeating itself.

Afer (sic) 2024 sure, wake me up.

You need to go back to civics class. The president only gets a four-year term, so you'd better be awake in 2020 because his term will be up. If you think it is a guarantee that he'll be re-elected, then I suggest that you take another look at the midterm results: The Democrats got 9 million more votes than the Republicans in the overall count, so clearly, they're not very happy with the current guy in charge.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

Posted in: Trump hails judge's ruling against Obamacare as 'great' See in context

And a lot of people didn’t like to waste money on the wretched ACA, thus the courts decision yesterday.

And this decision will most likely not survive the appeal to the Supreme Court. Review the case of the "National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius." How did that work out again?

No one told the Democrats to screw with the healthcare system.

Someone forgot to tell the Republicans that we actually need a healthcare system--and to this date, they have never put forth an actual plan.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

Posted in: Cohen claims Trump knew hush money payments wrong See in context

. . . here is a small conundrum, given the fact that the economy is on steroids, record unemployment, record unemployment in the Black community, over 4% GDP lower corporate tax rate, the influx of new businesses as well as international businesses and investments, companies getting tax breaks, employees getting bonuses with all this in the economy . . . *

What a fantasy! Yet, despite what you posted, the Republicans got their butts handed to them in the Midterms, so how do you explain that? After all, if everything has been so great and what you claim has been true, then why did they lose 40 seats in the House and barely held on to the Senate? Why did Democrats hold not only 7 contested governorships but flipped 7 more? (including the very red states of Kansas and Wisconsin). Why did the Democrats flip 337 state legislative seats? Also, how come the Democrats also took 7 statehouses (3 of where they control everything)? As far as the economy is concerned, its not on steroids. For the past year, it's had hemorrhoids.

. . .so far on the horizon there isn’t a single Democrat that can match that or will match that and as we all know once you give people a taste of something and you try to take it away (like money)*

False again given the results of the election and what is coming in 2019 when the new House gets seated. As far as taking things away, well, ask the Republicans how that worked out when they threatened to take away healthcare (something that the Democrats ran on).

Trump as an incumbent is sure to sail through a second term.

Delusional and not going to happen. He will most likely pull a Nixon or Agnew and resign once it becomes clear that his criminal activities have piled up to the point where not even his staunchest allies in the GOP will support him. Recall what the Republicans did to Nixon once they realized that they could no longer cover for that criminal. History will repeat itself, and no matter how many rants you want to post, you are not going to be able to stop it.

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

Should we wake you after he gets forced out of office or after he has rotted in jail?

2 ( +2 / -0 )

Posted in: Diabetic amputations on the rise in the U.S. See in context

I was diagnosed with Type 2 diabetes two years ago (thanks to a health check that caught it). I managed to get my diabetes under control by changing my diet, exercising, and getting tested regularly. I am basically on a low-carb diet and have pretty much given up all sodas, sugars, breads, rice, and other things that I used to love. I also walk 8 km a day (rain or shine), cycle, swim, and stay active. Intermittent fasting also helps.

There are many people out there who have Type 2 or 1 diabetes and don't know it. It tends to surface after age 40. If you have a history of diabetes in your family, then watch your blood sugar. Type 2 is reversible, but it will take a complete change of lifestyle and diet, and sadly, many people are unwilling to do it or wait until it is too late.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Posted in: What are some of your favorite Christmas-themed movies or TV shows? See in context

A Christmas Carol (Patrick Stewart's 1999 version is excellent. Alastair Sim's 1951 version is a classic)

How the Grinch Stole Christmas (the 1966 version only)

A Charlie Brown Christmas (1965)

Elf

The Polar Express

It's a Wonderful Life

"Night of the Meek" (Twilight Zone - 1985 remake)

"Santa '85" (Amazing Stories - 1985)

"The Blue Carbuncle" (Sherlock Holmes - 1984 version with Jeremy Brett and David Burke)

The Santa Clause 2

3 ( +3 / -0 )

Posted in: Mueller recommends no jail time for Flynn; calls his cooperation 'substantial' See in context

Exactly! And not screwing things up and trying to sabotage the President as much as they tried to.

Not true according to the IG Report, which debunked every false charge that you and others have made against them. Continuing to peddle these falsehoods isn't going to change that.

No, I did for the last 18 months and every single time it was dismissed, so you whip a dead horse.

Your 18-month "explanations" were proven to be false by the IG Report and other sources, which is why all of your bogus accusations were dismissed. As far as whipping a dead horse goes, you do it every time that you repeat these debunked claims of "sabotage" or "corrupt behavior" on their part.

Allow me to translate: Liberals have been caught again and getting hooked offstage.

Allow me to translate: Hyper-partisan Trump supporters have been caught once again making false claims that they cannot support with actual facts, so they revert to the usual tactics of: deny, deflect, distort, and demonize. I'm sure that the rebuttals to this post will illustrate this quite nicely.

I think it’s a waste if the Democrats think they’ll get Trump out of office.

If Trump gets thrown out of office, it will be because all of the criminal acts committed by Trump and his cronies will have come to light, and those violations will then be subjected to the consequences of the rule of law--and if you think that Republicans in the Senate are going to look away after Mueller's final report comes out, then I suggest you refresh your memory and read up on what happened to Nixon after many of his supporters decided that they could no longer give him a pass in the face of hard evidence.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

Posted in: Name your 7 favorite TV comedies of all time. See in context

The Three Stooges

Saturday Night Live (1975-1985)

MAS*H

Benny Hill

Monty Python

The Young Ones

In Living Color

Married With Children

The Drew Carey Show

Whose Line Is It Anyway?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Posted in: After Cohen plea, U.S. Democrats in Congress eye other Trump allies' testimony See in context

Any collusion yet?

MAGA

Moscow's

Agent

Governing

America

2 ( +2 / -0 )

Posted in: Trump orders more Russia-related probe documents to be declassified See in context

I didn't, I have a family lawyer though.

I find it hard to believe that you consulted your family lawyer about whether obstruction of justice was a crime or not. However, if you did, and he told you that it wasn't, then it's time to find a new family lawyer.

But not necessarily an impeachable crime.

So, now you admit that obstruction of justice is indeed a crime--just not an impeachable one. Nice pivot. Unfortunately, you are also wrong about that. You obviously didn't bother reading the link that I provided because if you had, you would have seen two examples of presidents having Articles of Impeachment drawn up against them for this crime.

If it did, we would have known . . .

Again, no we would not because the investigation is not over. How many times do you have to be told this? However, I can see that you insist on posting this falsehood over and over again despite having it pointed out to you before. As far as the rest of your rant about the FBI, Lisa Page, and the other right-wing talking points go, the IG's report already debunked your charges. Also, four federal judges have also ruled against this type of a defense ("Oh, my client has been wrongfully accused by a corrupt law enforcement agency or the Mueller investigation is unconstitutional . . . blah, blah, blah--motion denied--4 times).

. . . the Senate won't remove him

I wouldn't be too sure about that, especially since some Republican senators like Ben Sasse have shown some signs of having both a spine and a conscience, so there are no guarantees that Trump is going to get a free pass from the Senate--that is if it remains in the Republican's control.

The Republicans are also looking at picking up seats, so yes, I will indulge myself.

We'll see what you have to say after the election in November.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

Posted in: Trump orders more Russia-related probe documents to be declassified See in context

Obstruction of Justice in plain sight.  

Which in itself is not a crime.

Where did you go to law school? Obstruction of justice is a crime. Here is a link to the criminal statute so that you can ignore it later:

https://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-charges/obstruction-of-justice.html

Mueller has Manafort, Cohen, and Papadopolous--and reams of testimony.

Which has nothing to do with Trump.

This has been pointed out to you many times before. Until the investigation is over, you have no way of knowing what Mueller has. Also, you have no way of knowing if it has something to do with Trump or not.

Trump has Congress...for now.

2024 who knows....

The Republicans are in serious jeopardy of losing the House and quite possibly the Senate this November, but go ahead and indulge yourself in wishful thinking about 2024 if you want.

2 ( +4 / -2 )

Posted in: Republicans dodge, weave around Trump's hurricane tweets See in context

If they do impeach Trump, America really will step down to the ranks of Cameroon and Zimbabwe. America is half way there already with the crap that has gone on, Americans should be deeply insulted by it all. US is progressively fast tracking in becoming an official banana republic.

Ridiculous. Leaving the current corrupt administration and their enablers in place would eventually turn the U.S. into a banana republic. That's about to change.

http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/405504-trump-my-impeachment-would-turn-us-into-a-third-world-country

How does quoting the President's view of things pass as a fact? Opinion pieces are not facts, especially ones that come from the person who is at the center of all of the problems.

2 ( +4 / -2 )

Posted in: Biden feels the push to take on Trump in 2020 See in context

With Biden, there’s a lot of videos where creepy uncle Joe is groping women.....and saying strange things to them.

No, there are not. Stop making things up. The Me Too movement would have had a field day with him if he had.

He doesn’t have to, Funny when Hillary was asked to turn over her medical records she didn’t, so the left keep whipping that dead horse.

Hillary and medical records are irrelevant to this discussion. Mr. Biden is. Submitting a tax return has been a standard practice for presidential candidates for almost 50 years. The fact that every president since Nixon has submitted their tax returns but Trump shows that he has something to hide. Mr. Biden and other candidates would not have a problem submitting theirs.

. . . Biden doesn’t have a plane, can’t buy a plane if you’re not successful.*

Not true. There are plenty of people who are successful but don't have planes, or if they do, they don't feel the need to put their name on it. Your "logic" reminds me of Lucy in "A Charlie Brown Christmas" where she tells Schroeder that Beethoven couldn't be famous because his picture wasn't on a bubblegum card. However, this is yet another irrelevant point which has nothing to do with running for president.

That’s high and in TV if you are in the top ten, that is winning.

You still cannot admit that you made a mistake. You put forth the falsehood that Trump had the #1 show for 14 years. That was shown to be false. The #7 rating was only hit once during that time which is far from "winning," but go ahead and spin it if you like. It has nothing to do with the article or Mr. Biden.

So again, if Biden wants to run, please go ahead, it’ll be like watching a slow motion NAT Geo kill.

I would prefer if he didn't. The Democrats need a younger candidate with fresher ideas that are relevant and appeal to younger voters.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Posted in: Biden feels the push to take on Trump in 2020 See in context

Do you have any photos of Trump groping women?

No, but as Sneezy pointed out, there is an audio tape of him bragging about it. Would that do?

Casinos, billions, plane (with his name on it) helicopter, golf courses, his own building (with his name on it) a number one 14 year long number one TV show and the Presidency.

The casinos went bankrupt. The billions of dollars that he has amassed have not been properly accounted for since he won't release his tax returns. As far as having your name on an airship, there was this guy named Paul von Hindenburg, and if I recall, that didn't turn out so well. His reality TV show was never #1. The highest it ever got was #7 in 2004. Lastly, I wonder why you failed to mention some of his other business track records, which can be seen here:

http://time.com/4343030/donald-trump-failures/

Finally, I wouldn't consider what he has done to the Presidency as any sort of accomplishment. He is a disgrace to the office and is an embarrassment to the sane members of the U.S population. November cannot come soon enough.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

Posted in: Michael Cohen sets up GoFundMe page for legal costs See in context

The investigation is about Russian meddling.

It’s supposed to be, but now they’re after people with money

No, the investigation is NOT just about Russian meddling, and it is certainly not about "people with money." How many times do I have to post the original order which outlines the investigation before everyone understands the mandate? It's available online and quite easily accessed. However, given the recent conversation on this thread, it looks like I'm going to have to post it again:

The Special Counsel is authorized to conduct the investigation by then-FBI Director James B. Comey in testimony before the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence on March 20, 2017, including:

(i) any links and/or coordination bet ween the Russian government and individuals

associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump; and

(ii) any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation; and

(iii) any other matters within the scope of 28 C.F.R. § 600.4(a).

If the Special Counsel believes it is necessary and appropriate, the Special Counsel is

authorized to prosecute federal crimes arising from the investigation of these matters.

(d) Sections 600.4 through 600. l 0 of Title 28 of the Code of Federal Regulations are

applicable to the Special Counsel.

So, which parts of "(ii) any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation; and

(iii) any other matters within the scope of 28 C.F.R. § 600.4(a) do people not understand? Seriously, just read the mandate. It's quite clear.

Again, the investigation is to being (sic) down the President.

No, the investigation is not, and NOWHERE in the letter does it say that.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

Posted in: S Africa hits back at Trump over land 'seizure' tweet See in context

Stick to the truth, Donald Trump has not been convicted of any crime. 

Yet. That all could change if what I posted about what is going on with the lawsuit in New York proceeds.

The proof and nothing but the proof is acceptable in an American court of law.

We are not in a court of law right now. This is an internet messaging board where people can voice their opinions freely about anything they want. The right-wingers here have had no problem calling Hillary Clinton a "criminal" (and still do) and have also accused others of committing crimes that they were never convicted of. Where were you then, or why didn't you speak out based on what you just posted?

3 ( +4 / -1 )

Posted in: S Africa hits back at Trump over land 'seizure' tweet See in context

A crime is illegal, against the law. Please explain where Trump has broken the law and committed illegal crimes.

Here is something for you to contemplate:

https://ag.ny.gov/press-release/attorney-general-underwood-announces-lawsuit-against-donald-j-trump-foundation-and-its

Now, you'll say, "OK, but this hasn't gone to trial, and he hasn't been convicted of anything illegal yet." True enough, but given the evidence shown in the indictment (and feel free to click on the attachments of the .pdf files of the exhibits), you tell me if you still think that Trump hasn't broken any laws. Oh, and Underwood went ahead and forwarded this to the IRS, The Federal Elections Committee, and The New York Tax Division. Let's see what they think.

Then there is Michael Cohen, who implicated Trump yesterday as a co-conspirator in two of the eight felonies that he plead guilty to--both Campaign Finance violations.

I'd say that the President and his family seem to facing some very serious legal jeopardy--and since many are state violations in this case, there are no pardons that can be given.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Posted in: Cohen testifies Trump told him to commit crime by paying off women See in context

When you have corrupt cops trying to take down a duly elected President with the help of partisan Democrats lawyers, talk about corruption to the highest level.

Just stop it. We've been over this nonsense before. This has been debunked and is a pathetic non-argument aimed at changing the subject based on right-wing talking points. If you want to see actual corruption, you can take a good look at the current President and his administration. Then again, you will most likely put your head in the sand (or elsewhere) whenever this harsh reality comes up. Meanwhile, the recent conviction of Manafort plus guilty pleas by others involved with Trump point to actual corruption instead of the imagined corruption that you keep peddling.

Oh, spare me! Damn the people, damn the system, we don’t like or respect the people’s wishes, so we feel we need to overthrow and overturn the election and will use any means necessary to achieve that goal.

Oh, spare me and stop your whining. The criminal wrongdoings of the people associated with Trump have shown Trump and his cronies to be unfit for office. We'll see what happens this November so that we can find out if the Republicans need to be thrown out of office in order to put an end to this lawless president and his administration. There will be no Electoral College to help Trump and the Republicans this time.

You've sold your soul.

I’m not a liberal.

Ridiculous.

No, you stated that conspiracy was not a crime.

It is not necessarily a crime.

It most certainly is, and I gave plenty of evidence to support my point. How about you do the same instead of simply blurting out a juvenile retort devoid of any substance in response.

I wouldn't be so sure about that

I’m quite sure of that.

I'm sure you are. However, I wouldn't be to sure of anything until after the election and Mueller's report comes out.

2 ( +4 / -2 )

Recent Comments

Popular

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites


©2019 GPlusMedia Inc.