dmacleod comments

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:

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.

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:

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:

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.


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 )

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

No, if it were a crime Trump would be in a striped suit, that won’t happen.

No, you stated that conspiracy was not a crime. I provided proof that you were wrong about that. Conspiracy is a crime. The fact that Trump isn't wearing a "striped suit" is irrelevant to the issue of whether conspiracy is a crime or not. Have to courage to admit that you were wrong.

It's up to the Special Counsel to determine if Trump should be charged with conspiracy. Ultimately, it will be up to Congress to determine if he is guilty of it or not. Therefore, it's too early to determine any guilt or innocence at this point.

Manafort is smiling, he knows he’s got this. *

Oh, he's got it all right--a fatal case of legal herpes.

Trump won’t fail him.

I wouldn't be so sure about that.

4 ( +4 / -0 )

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

. . . you can contribute as much of your own money to your own campaign as you want. *

Cohen was not running for office. Trump was. Cohen made the payments as he admitted, and those payments violated Campaign Finance Laws (as Cohen also admitted to).

Also even if this was an illegal contribution you pay a fine and move on.

Wrong. The penalties for illegal contributions was spelled out clearly in the indictment. It's up to a judge to determine how much prison time Cohen will serve.

6 ( +6 / -0 )

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

The crime would be conspiracy.

Which in itself is not a crime.

Wrong. Read all about the criminal statute for conspiracy here:

5 ( +5 / -0 )

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


dmacleod: "Off the topic. Obama, the debt, or anything else that you bring up that has nothing to do with the article is irrelevant to this discussion."

lincolnman was the one who brought up the "$20 trillion debt, not me, I just responded, go take this up with him, lol.

Wrong again. Scroll up and read Dango Bong's comment from 1:13 p.m. Lincolnman was responding to him.

Oh my! indeed.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

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

Probably, happens before he was President, so what’s the crime?

The crime would be conspiracy. If it is discovered that Trump told Cohen to make the payments, then he would be charged with be a willing participant in violating campaign finance laws as spelled out in the original indictment. I'll provide the two violations for you for quick reference:

Count Seven of the Information charges the defendant with willfully causing an unlawful corporate contribution, from at least in or about June 2016, up to and including in or about October 2016, in violation of52 U.S.C. §§ 3011801) & 30109(d)(l)(A), and 18 U.S.C. §2(b). Count Seven carries a maximum term of imprisonment of 5 years; a maximum term of supervised release of 3 years; a maximum fine of $250,000, twice the gross pecuniary gain derived from the offense, or twice the gross pecuniary loss to persons other than the defendant resulting from the offense; and a $100 mandatory special assessment. Rev, 041242018

Count Eight of the Information charges the defendant with making an excessive campaign contribution, on or about October 27, 2016, in violation of 52 U.S.C. §§ 30116(a)(1)(A), 30116(a)(7) & 30109(d)(l)(A), and 1:; USC. § 20:). Count Eight carries a maximum term of imprisonment of 5 years; a maximum term of supervised release of 3 years; a maximum fine of $250,000, twice the gross pecuniary gain derived from the offense, or twice the gross pecuniary loss to persons other than the defendant resulting from the offense, and a $100 mandatory special assessment.

You can read the nice .pdf file of the entire indictment here:

Oh, and remember, Cohen has already plead guilty to violating these two charges and implicated Trump as being a part of it. You can read his statement here:

3 ( +3 / -0 )

Posted in: Trump worries that Mueller interview could be a 'perjury trap' See in context

@Bass--seriously, do you call what you posted "evidence" that these lawyers are Democrats? Donating money to political causes does not make a person a member of that party. Remember, Trump and his family have also donated to Democrats. By your logic, they are Democrats, too. Why do you continue to ignore this point? Why haven't you addressed it?

I did, please scroll up.

No, you did not. Nowhere did you mention how the current misuse of the "perjury trap" would apply. So, let's try this again: Take my three points (one at a time if you like) and refute them with facts. No rhetoric--just facts--ones that come from a legal source.

No, if that were the case, they would be on Phil Griffin’s network like Joe.

No, the people who have different opinions than the paid experts on Fox are people who do things like teach law at universities or are people who study the law and back up their opinions with past cases and other credible sources which are not affiliated with any news network.

A total and utter politically motivated and calculated witch hunt.

This has shown to be false according to the IG Report (another thing you like to ignore). The IG found no bias or wrongdoing on the investigators' part. However, keep repeating what the president says if it makes you feel better. Meanwhile, the investigation will go on.

Or he can just give Mueller the finger.

Yes, because that is how a mature person would act, especially a president. Remember the last president who gave the Special Counsel "the finger" when he was asked to cooperate? That Special Counsel then took it to the Supreme Court, and the Supreme Court took that middle finger and told that president to give himself his own prostate exam. How'd that work out for Nixon again?

5 ( +5 / -0 )

Posted in: Trump worries that Mueller interview could be a 'perjury trap' See in context

Actually, it would.

Oh really, care to explain how? Use my example of how it wouldn't be if you need a guide as to how to formulate a logical response.

Yes, I watch FNC and yes, I do respect legal opinions of Gerrat, Napolitano, Dershowitz some of the most knowledgeable minds in legal history that’s why FNC pays them a fortune of a salary to hear their legal opinions.

FNC pays them because they will say what Fox listeners want to hear. There are other legal opinions out there which counter their legal opinions.

4 ( +4 / -0 )

Posted in: Trump worries that Mueller interview could be a 'perjury trap' See in context

As the left also have zero proof of Trump being guilty of anything.

The "left" is not investigating this matter. The Special Counsel (a Republican) who is being overseen by another Republican at the Department of Justice is. If anyone has "zero proof" of anything here, it is you.

I wouldn’t be caught dead talking to anyone that has a team of Democrat lawyers and a few on that team that represented my former rival. 

Another string of falsehoods that I have addressed before but you have decided to keep posting them whenever you get the chance. First of all, you have no evidence that the lawyers on Mueller's team are Democrats. Have you seen their political registration? Can you even name who they are and how you know that they are Democrats? Perhaps you would like to go with the old, "Oh, but they made campaign donations to Democratic candidates in the past, so there is the smoking gun." Well, by that logic, then Trump and his family are also Democrats since they've given money to Democrats in the past. Also, how come Trump's legal team isn't trying this as a part of their potential strategy on defending Trump and his administration against the current investigation?

The IG's report stated that there was no political bias in the current investigation. You can deny it all you want, but unless the IG decides to amend his report or you come up with some actual facts, you are simply repeating things which have already been debunked as being false.

5 ( +5 / -0 )

Posted in: Trump worries that Mueller interview could be a 'perjury trap' See in context

Enough with this "perjury trap" nonsense. This is yet another tactic by Trump's legal team and the right-wing media to prey upon the ignorance and fears of Trump supporters as well as attempt to muddy the waters related to Mueller's investigation.

Look up the actual legal definition of what the "perjury trap" defense is because it wouldn't apply in this case. First of all,  it is a strategy used by the defense to show that the prosecutors got a person to give false testimony while being under oath in front of a grand jury for reasons not related to their case, but simply to try to get the person to commit perjury about a matter that could be used later in a separate trial. 

Therefore, (1) Trump is not going to be in front of a grand jury. He's going to be interviewed by the Special Counsel in a setting outside of a court of law. (2) Trump would not be under oath. A person who gets interviewed by investigators simply gets asked questions, and they can decline to answer them if they wish. Finally, (3) the questions would be relevant to the investigation since some of them would be related to matters that happened during Trump's campaign and the people who were associated with him at the time. Again, he can choose to decline to answer any of those questions if he wishes to invoke his Fifth Amendment rights.

Of course, you don't have to take my word for it, but you certainly shouldn't be listening to the spin doctors on Fox or other pundits who know very little about the law. You can read more about what a "perjury trap" is at the following links and then decide for yourself:

5 ( +5 / -0 )

Posted in: Trump says he has 'nothing to hide' from Mueller See in context

And you're saying Adam Shiff (sic) is the virtue of honesty and integrity? The man would sell his own mother down the river if he knew it would further his career.

When have I ever mentioned Adam Schiff? Stop deflecting. I won't bother asking you to support your statement above regarding Mr. Schiff since I know that you can't. Posting baseless partisan attacks will never strengthen your argument. that’s why these FBI rogue cops keep getting fired or their security clearance taken away. Honesty? Ahem

Who are all of these FBI rogue cops that you are referring to? Perhaps you are thinking that Peter Strzok is a group of people? Mr. Strzok was fired because he violated FBI procedures. He was not fired for corruption as some have falsely claimed here. Perhaps you are referring to John Brennan, who was never an FBI agent. He was the former head of the CIA. Maybe you mean Comey? Last I heard, he still has his clearance.

And then Trump will pardon him and he can restart his life again. Thank God for pardons.

You have obviously ignored everything that I have said about this. Last night, I asked you to provide justification for any of these pardons, and you did not. Then, I pointed out how you and others would have lost your minds had President Obama pardoned Hillary Clinton for any crimes that she would have been convicted of (which she wasn't), and again, you declined to comment. It's clear that you are just repeating talking points from the extreme right-wing blogs and media and have no real thoughts of your own that you can offer in defense.

5 ( +5 / -0 )

Posted in: Trump says he has 'nothing to hide' from Mueller See in context

Don’t forget to add a corrupt intelligence group of rogue cops trying to bring you down...

Zero evidence of any corruption by the intelligence officials who are doing the investigation--none whatsoever. The Inspector General's report made this quite clear. However, perhaps you can share your proof of corruption with the IG so that he can amend his report.

Ok and Flynn gets maybe sentenced and then pardoned and then what?

There is no "maybe" here. Flynn will be sentenced, and he will be going to jail. It's time to drop this fantasy of yours that Trump is going to be able to pardon his way out of this mess. He cannot pardon everyone whom he has a relationship with that has been found guilty of committing felonies in a court of law. It would be a clear abuse of power.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

Posted in: Another trial looms for ex-Trump campaign chairman Manafort See in context

Manafort should be ok in the long run. Pardons are wonderful things.

Except Manafort is not done in court. Next month, he will go on trial in Washington D.C. for suspected conspiracy, bank and tax fraud, money laundering, witness tampering, and failing to register as a lobbyist in his work before 2014 on behalf of Ukraine’s pro-Russian president at the time, Viktor Yanukovych.

However, let's say that Trump decides to pardon him after that trial plus the one going on now in Virginia. It still won't help him should the prosecutors with the Southern District of New York bring charges of money laundering and tax fraud against him in New York State. As I have pointed out to you many, many times before, presidential pardons can only be applied in federal cases--not state cases. Should he be convicted of any crimes in New York, Trump cannot help him. Period.

Finally, please explain to all of us your reasoning as to why Manafort deserves a pardon based on any crimes that he gets convicted on. People don't deserve pardons just because they happen to be associated with a president that you happen to support. If someone breaks the law and are found guilty in a court of law, then that person should face the consequences. No one is above the law.

I'm pretty sure that had Hillary Clinton been convicted of any wrongdoing and Obama had pardoned her, you and the rest of the hard right-wing would have spontaneously combusted.

4 ( +5 / -1 )

Posted in: Gregory Peck's grandson to play Spock in new 'Star Trek' See in context

"Through 52 years of television and film, a parallel universe and a mirror universe, Mr Spock remains the only member of the original bridge crew to span every era of 'Star Trek,'" executive producer Alex Kurtzman said in a statement.

Not true. Spock never showed up on "Enterprise" (2001-2005 series) which supposedly took place 100 years before the original Star Trek's "Five-Year Mission."

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Posted in: Prosecution rests in Manafort tax evasion and fraud trial See in context

Mueller wasting his efforts prosecuting a case completely unrelated to Russia.

Nope. First, he is not doing the prosecuting. He is doing the investigation, which happens to include anything related to Russia as spelled out quite clearly in Rosenstein's letter:

b) The Special Counsel is authorized to conduct the investigation confirmed 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 between 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).

(c) 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. . . . .

Manafort was Trump's campaign manager, and since some of the things he is charged with happened during his time as campaign manager and was related to Russia, Mueller is not "wasting his time." However, you and others are by continually denying this. Go ahead and keep doing it though. It's not going to change anything. The investigation and trials will go on--like it or not.

The Deep State in action - Bizarre.

The only thing that is bizarre here is your belief in the "Deep State." Nothing says, "I don't want to be taken seriously" whenever you bring up this nonsense. Funny how this "Deep State" came about just after Trump took office. Nobody seemed to talk about it before Sean Hannity invented it. "Deep State"--the only thing you Trump supporters should worry about regarding Trump is the "Deep Fryer."

4 ( +4 / -0 )

Posted in: Trump still fuels racial divide a year after Charlottesville See in context

Obama has been pals with a black nationalist preacher and considered him his mentor. You can’t overlook this racist association. 

Actually, you can since Obama both condemned and distanced himself from Pastor Jeremiah Wright's remarks in his "A More Perfect Union" speech at the National Constitution Center in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania in 2008. Obama condemned the remarks made by the pastor, but perhaps you think he that since he placed them in historical context by describing some of the key events that may have formed Wright's views on race-related matters in America that he somehow was influenced or endorsed them, which he didn't.  Let's be clear here: he didn't agree with them, so I don't see this as any evidence of racism or inspired racism.

Now, maybe since Obama didn't disown Mr. Wright, that should be evidence enough in your eyes, but think of how many times friends or family members say dumb things or things you don't agree with. Do you disown them? Are you guilty of endorsing what they say simply by association even though you speak out against them?

Just as I see Obama’s photo with Farrakhan evidence of his racism. 

So, let me get this straight. If someone takes a photo with someone else, they are automatically part of that person's social, political, and mental psyche and endorse everything that that person embodies? In other words, since Trump took a picture with Kim Jong Un, does that now make him a communist sympathizer? If so, then that would require a stretch that not even Mr. Fantastic from The Fantastic Four could pull off.

If there is a picture produced of Trump meeting with a white nationalist leader such as David Duke I would consider that evidence of racism.

I wouldn't. Just because a public figure takes a picture with another does not necessarily mean that there is some kind of relationship or guilt by association leap of logic.

4 ( +5 / -1 )

Posted in: Trump still fuels racial divide a year after Charlottesville See in context

The economy, race relations.

Are you talking about the economy now or back in 2008? Same with race relations. What things happened during the primaries in 2008 to touch off "the racial divide"? Remember, I asked you for examples from that particular time period since you made the accusation. Perhaps you are confused?

Actually, everything he didn’t do, which was a lot.

So, this statement is an example of giving specifics. Nice dodge. Just admit that you have nothing and move on.

Yes, the Dems won’t definitely get the Senate, so that’s a huge buffer plus.

If anything has taught us about recent elections in America, nothing is guaranteed. There is a strong possibility that the Democrats could take both the House and the Senate, or they could get neither. Brazenly making predictions about the upcoming election is just setting yourself up for disappointment, humiliation, or both (and no, I am not making any predictions here).

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Posted in: Trump still fuels racial divide a year after Charlottesville See in context

There were primaries before that.

So, where is the evidence? Let's hear a quotation from a speech that he made during one of the primaries. How about something that he wrote? Remember, you made the accusation, so now you have to back it up with facts.

Not the man, his policies were.

Specifics, please.

But it intensified over the last 8 years.

Yes, but not as a result of anything that Obama did. I've said this before, but it is worth repeating: Yes, racism did rear its ugly head during Obama's time in office, but that had more to deal with the people who couldn't stand the fact that a half-white and half-black man was their president.

Not at all, I’m just saying that the left have zero room to talk, so they need to keep the race issue alive, that is why they keep going back to Charlottesville, it’s the ONLY ace in the hole they have.

Nope, but keep thinking that. We'll see just how correct you are after the elections in November.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Posted in: Trump still fuels racial divide a year after Charlottesville See in context

The racial divide started in 2008 and has been a contentious issue ever since.

Really? Please tell us what Bush did during the last year of his presidency to start "the racial divide." How about giving us a specific date or incident to support your assertion.

Of course, we all know what you're trying to do here, Bass--that is blame President Obama, who didn't take office until 2009. Then again, that doesn't matter because you have been asked repeatedly to provide actual of examples of Obama saying clear-cut examples of racism (not imagined but actual quotations, video, or audio of him making racial statements--and no, I don't want Op-ed pieces from right-wing media sites or user-made Youtube videos because opinions are not facts). In order to help you with this, the current member of the Oval Office has provided us with plenty of examples--from denying people housing based on the color of their skin (see Trump's 1973 settlement) to labeling certain people "rapists" and "criminals" so that a wall has to be built to keep them out (and spare us the "Oh, he was talking about MS-13" excuse because he wasn't and never made any references to them during or after his speech).

The fact is, the "racial divide" has been prevalent in America since its founding. Trying to pin it one one specific president shows either a lack of historical knowledge or a blatant partisan attempt at trying to score cheap political points based on falsehoods.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

Posted in: Trump still fuels racial divide a year after Charlottesville See in context

So whatever happened to the trial of the supposed white supremacist who supposedly intentionally committed this act of terror?Has anyone proven his guilt or intent in a court of law? Or are we doing the “it fits our narrative that he is guilty in advance of trial again”?

Had you bothered to actually look this up, you'd discover that a three-week jury trial for Fields is scheduled to begin later this year on November 26.

He is charged with first-degree murder, five counts of malicious wounding, three counts of aggravated malicious wounding, and failure to stop in event of injury or death. All the charges are felonies.

4 ( +5 / -1 )

Posted in: Trump-backed candidates struggle in Ohio, Kansas elections See in context

Okay by that standard you cannot say Trump is a racist because he has never been convicted of racism.

I'm using the law as a standard. Calling someone a criminal and someone a racist are two very different things. Being a criminal means that you have been convicted of breaking the law or laws, and it is a serious matter on a person's record. There are crimes for falsely accusing someone of being a criminal if it causes that other person some type of financial or personal damage. That's why we have slander and libel laws. As I pointed out before, Clinton was never charged or convicted with a crime, so you and others cannot continue to label her a criminal.

Being a racist is not in itself a crime. However, it can lead to lawsuits for the person accused if they have shown to have violated certain laws. Trump's past has shown him to be a racist--from his statements in public to his discriminatory practices of denying people housing based on the color of their skin. See Trump's 1973 lawsuit and the settlement for just one example of him being a racist. You can read more about it here:

You cannot say he colluded with the Russians because he has not been convicted of collusion. Yet that doesn’t stop many, many of his political opponents from doing so.

The Mueller investigation is far from over, so it is premature to say whether he is guilty or not (and by the way, the crime would be "conspiracy" and not "collusion" should charges ever get leveled). Recent statements by Trump's former personal lawyer, Michael Cohen, contradict Trump's past denials that he knew nothing about the infamous "Trump Tower Meeting" with a group of Russians prior to the 2016 election, so we are just going to have to wait and see what the investigation uncovers (that is if the Republicans in the House and others stop trying to derail the investigation before it runs its course).

I happen to believe that America’s criminal justice system is hopelessly corrupt. You can see that in the fact that the Democrat party funneled money through third party cutouts to gather opposition research from the very same Russians that Trump is accused of colluding with. This tainted kompromat was used to spy on American citizens related to Trumps campaign.

I'm not sure who you are talking about here, but the idea that the Justice Department singled out conservatives and other American citizens and spied on them has been shown to be false. For example, Trump accused the Obama Administration of orchestrating a wiretapping and bugging campaign against him during the election, but that was debunked. I'm sure other examples that you can provide will also be debunked (just remember the topic of this thread and what happens if you go too far off the topic).

This politicized information is being used by the special counsel in Comey’s attempt to undo the results of the 2016 election. If the roles were reversed I guarantee you that the Left would be raising holy hell right now.*

Here's another baseless accusation and talking point from the extreme right. There is zero evidence of Comey attempting to undo the results of the 2016 election, but trying to convince you and others of this is most likely a huge waste of time. However, if you have this evidence, you should forward it to the DOJ so that he can be prosecuted for violating election laws (or whatever other laws you can come up with).

Now that it is acceptable to spy on an opposing party’s election campaign maybe Trump will find some obscure violation that will allow him to turn the tables and surveil the Dem candidate in 2020. The precedent has been set.

Both parties have been spying on each other for as long as we have been having elections. The problem is, there are legal and illegal ways of doing it. The whole Watergate affair is one example of illegal spying. Getting stolen e-mails from a foreign entity and using them is another. Imagined wiretapping or cherry-picking IRS investigations of organizations suspected of violating Section 527 pertaining to tax status for political organizations are not.

You may trust all law enforcement (except of course for the police that are accused of systematically oppressing black citizens ) but I don’t.

That's your choice, but labeling all of law enforcement as corrupt because you feel that they are singling out the current President and his administration without real evidence is a huge over-generalization and is ridiculous in the extreme.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Posted in: Trump-backed candidates struggle in Ohio, Kansas elections See in context

Trump won not only because Hillary was a criminal but also because Obama took his party so far to the racialist identity politics extreme. 

Wrong on both counts:  I've addressed these two off the topic comments before, but since you mentioned them again, and the moderators let them stand once again, I’ll repeat what I said earlier that (1) despite the Republicans' best efforts, Hillary was never indicted or convicted of any crime. However, if you have evidence that says otherwise, then please cite the exact criminal statute that she was convicted of, which court convicted her, and what sentence she received. If you cannot do that, then she's not a criminal, so stop it with this hyper-partisan- fueled nonsense already. However, if you would like to see some real criminals, then look no further than the current administration where people have been indicted and convicted--with lots more to come. Next, (2) the only ones who practiced “racialist identity politics” prior to the current occupant in the Oval Office were the ones on the right who couldn’t bear to have a half white and half black man as their president.  Once again, if you can show any real (not imagined) examples of “racialist identity politics,” from Obama, I’m sure that many of us would love to see them.  Show us some actual quotations or speeches from credible sources that support these claims.  You know, like claiming that a certain group of people are “rapists” and “criminals” based on where they came from or what they looked like so that a wall can be built to keep them out.

As far as the content of the article above, Democrats were not expected to win in Ohio and in other deep-red Republican districts. Ohio's 12th has been a Republican seat since the 1980s, and it has been nicely gerrymandered to the point where it would take a miracle for any Democrat to win. What should be troubling is the fact that this was a district that Trump won by 11 points back in 2016--in other words, it should have been a lock, but now there is a recount. Why was it that close? Oh, and if you think the Ohio 12th District election is over and done, then think again because both candidates will square off in November to see who gets to hold the seat for a longer time. This recent election was to fill a vacancy until the voters get to decide again in the Midterms this year.

Both parties shouldn't be complacent because as the last election demonstrated, nothing is a sure bet. What isn't a sure bet is relying on spreading falsehoods to try and explain away election results to somehow plant seeds of doubt with one party or another. We'll see what the voters think in November.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Recent Comments


Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites

©2018 GPlusMedia Inc.