A Thread for Trump's Self-Inflicted Wound of the Day

[~Rocktar~]

He's not right.

A President refusing to sign a bill doesn't keep it from coming into effect. If they don't sign it, it becomes law after a few days- the President has the ability to check the Legislature, but only the Legislature determines what becomes a law. (i.e. The Executive's input isn't required to pass laws)

The only exception is if the President vetoes while Congress isn't in session to respond. But Congress can easily get around that.

Plus, it's a temporary solution at best. Even if Congress didn't use the standard tricks they use now to prevent a pocket veto, they could just pass the Bill again when recess is over.

Wait, what, the Congress makes laws and the President doesn't?


https://youtu.be/2pxOc0Mp2n4

https://youtu.be/WQn953pKN4I
https://youtu.be/pYqf_L6Scpg
https://youtu.be/ThC_jNuZztM


The list goes on and on. What hypocrisy.

[time4fun]

Wait, what, the Congress makes laws and the President doesn't?


https://youtu.be/2pxOc0Mp2n4

https://youtu.be/WQn953pKN4I
https://youtu.be/pYqf_L6Scpg
https://youtu.be/ThC_jNuZztM


The list goes on and on. What hypocrisy.

Do...I need to explain to you the difference between a law and an executive order?

[Savageheart]

It wont matter if you do....

[~Rocktar~]

Do...I need to explain to you the difference between a law and an executive order?

It didn't seem to matter when his Imperious Leader was making them, why should it now?

[time4fun]

It didn't seem to matter when his Imperious Leader was making them, why should it now?

Light on substance as usual.

Who needs facts when you have seething resentment?

[~Rocktar~]

Light on substance as usual.

Who needs facts when you have seething resentment?

You sure don't.

[Methais]

Yes Tgo, the takeaway from this exchange is how "owned" I am. Sorry I didn't organize my gym schedule around your inaccuracies.

Also, your take on veto is completely off. "Some" is over 100, and Congress doesn't respond to vetoes on bills that curtail Executive power by changing their minds.

https://i.imgur.com/oaqsYdi.png

I would like to pre-emptively apologize for violating the unwritten rule of taking a screenshot with more than 8% battery life.

[Archigeek]

I was going to say that he'll sign it because it would be politically fucking stupid not to sign it, but that hasn't stopped him before, so who knows.

My guess is he'll sign it with great flourish and claim it was all his idea and he backs it 100%. It's all about the ego.

[time4fun]

I was going to say that he'll sign it because it would be politically fucking stupid not to sign it, but that hasn't stopped him before, so who knows.

My guess is he'll sign it with great flourish and claim it was all his idea and he backs it 100%. It's all about the ego.

I think it's fair to say that at this point not signing it would be more than politically stupid.

It would be legally stupid.

His stance on sanctions is- and has been- one of the brighest red flags in the collusion case. It's the obvious quo for the quid, as it were. The first thing his administration tried to do when they got into office was to unilaterally lift Russian sanctions. There's a reason why the GOP-Controlled Congress is sending him a bill that basically prevents him from lifting sanctions.

Fighting this Bill would add significant fodder to the investigations into his dealings with Russia.

[Tgo01]

It would be legally stupid.

So now it's illegal for a president to use his veto powers. I can't even make this shit up.

[Parkbandit]

Who needs facts when you have seething resentment?

LOL.. like 17 agencies all investigated Russia collusion and they all agreed?

You're hilarious.

[Parkbandit]

I think it's fair to say that at this point not signing it would be more than politically stupid.

It would be legally stupid.

http://mrwgifs.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/Jason-Bateman-What-No-No-Reactoin-Gif.gif

[time4fun]

So now it's illegal for a president to use his veto powers. I can't even make this shit up.

Seriously?

That's what you got from that?

Tgo- first, it is illegal for a President to do anything with "corrupt purpose". He's a President, not the God-King.

Secondly, he is being actively investigated by several Congressional committees and a Special Prosecutor- looking into allegations of collusion between his campiagn and Russia. Working to shift policy towards Russia's best interests (and against our own) would be a tell-tale sign that there was, in fact, collusion.

So yes, refusing to sign the Bill would be legally stupid as it would be adding to the mounting pile of evidence that the Trump campaign made a deal with the Russian government for election help.

[time4fun]

Speaking of which... (http://www.politico.com/story/2017/07/26/russia-sanctions-bill-240984)



House and Senate Republicans clashed Wednesday over a bipartisan package of sanctions targeting Russia, Iran, and North Korea as the Senate GOP threw up a new hurdle that could significantly delay the bill's arrival on President Donald Trump's desk.

Less than 24 hours after the sanctions deal passed the House 419-3, Senate Foreign Relations Chairman Bob Corker (R-Tenn.) said his chamber would likely cut out its North Korea provisions -- which were added to the mix in the last lap of talks on the legislation at the behest of House GOP leaders -- and send it back across the Capitol. House Republican leaders responded to Corker's gambit by urging the Senate to act quickly on the bill and warning that any changes would postpone Trump's looming decision on a veto until September.


Corker, a leading author of the initial package of penalties against Russia and Iran, had stayed conspicuously silent as senior House and Senate negotiators in both parties unveiled a deal Saturday that allows Congress to block Trump from easing or ending any sanctions against Moscow.

His critical comments Wednesday morning risk reopening fellow Republicans to Democratic charges that they are delaying the bill's final passage at the behest of a president who has long dismissed U.S. intelligence agencies' conclusion that Russia meddled in the presidential election.

....

[Ashliana]

LOL.. like 17 agencies all investigated Russia collusion and they all agreed?

You're hilarious.

NBC: Can you just tell us, is there any dissent within the Intelligence Community you oversee on the question of whether the Russians interfered with the American election?

Daniel Coats, Trump's Director of National Intelligence: "There is no dissent, and I have stated that publicly, and I've stated it to the President."

Less than a week ago.

[Tgo01]

Seriously?

That's what you got from that?

Tgo- first, it is illegal for a President to do anything with "corrupt purpose". He's a President, not the God-King.

Secondly, he is being actively investigated by several Congressional committees and a Special Prosecutor- looking into allegations of collusion between his campiagn and Russia. Working to shift policy towards Russia's best interests (and against our own) would be a tell-tale sign that there was, in fact, collusion.

So yes, refusing to sign the Bill would be legally stupid as it would be adding to the mounting pile of evidence that the Trump campaign made a deal with the Russian government for election help.

Look, time4stupid, either Trump illegally conspired with the Russians or he didn't. Trump invoking his constitutional power of veto itself can NEVER be a crime. Nor would him not using said power somehow absolve him of some other crime.

Trump either took money or favors from a foreign government in a quid pro quo arrangement or he didn't. Vetoing the Russian sanctions doesn't somehow prove he's guilty of a crime. The investigators either find something or they don't, and they won't.

Likewise if Trump received one million dollars in exchange for lifting/vetoing the sanctions he doesn't somehow get out of it by saying "Look! I never actually vetoed them! I'm good!"

Again, he either committed a crime or he didn't. Him vetoing or signing the bill for the sanctions doesn't change a single damn thing about the investigations.

Ask your boyfriend to teach you everything he has learned by being a secretary at a law firm, maybe you'll learn a thing or two so you'll stop embarrassing yourself so badly.

[time4fun]

LOL.. like 17 agencies all investigated Russia collusion and they all agreed?

You're hilarious.

Not that you're worth responding to, but hey, you try hard so I'll throw you a bone.

Talking about 17 Intelligence agencies vs the person who offically represents them all is a difference without a distinction.

It's also a distraction from the point- which Ash made well. There is no disagreement about this among the US Intelligence Community. That's the whole point here, and while I understand that the right wing media operation latched onto the phrasing as hard as they could- it was just so they wouldn't have to deal with the real substance of the point.

Talking about 17 Intelligence agencies was just another way to say "it is unanimous". And that's precisely what the public statement by the man who officially represents every US Intelligence Agency said. And what has been said in countess hearings by representatives of our Intelligence Agencies under oath.

And you either know that- and are intentionally trying to distract from the real point. (Which means you are irrelevant)

Or you don't understand that because you genuinely don't understand the situation. (Which means you are irrelevant)

Take your pick.

[Wrathbringer]

Not that you're worth responding to, but hey, you try hard so I'll throw you a bone.

Talking about 17 Intelligence agencies vs the person who offically represents them all is a difference without a distinction.

It's also a distraction from the point- which Ash made well. There is no disagreement about this among the US Intelligence Community. That's the whole point here, and while I understand that the right wing media operation latched onto the phrasing as hard as they could- it was just so they wouldn't have to deal with the real substance of the point.

Talking about 17 Intelligence agencies was just another way to say "it is unanimous". And that's precisely what the public statement by the man who officially represents every US Intelligence Agency said. And what has been said in countess hearings by representatives of our Intelligence Agencies under oath.

And you either know that- and are intentionally trying to distract from the real point. (Which means you are irrelevant)

Or you don't understand that because you genuinely don't understand the situation. (Which means you are irrelevant)

Take your pick.

You're retarded.

[Tgo01]

Talking about 17 Intelligence agencies vs the person who offically represents them all is a difference without a distinction.

Okay, time4fun, for shits and giggles if this same guy also "represented" the IRS would you honestly be sitting here saying the IRS agrees that Russia meddled in our elections?

No, because you realize how dumb this argument is. Then again maybe you would agree with it, perhaps I'm giving you too much credit.

[Methais]

You're retarded.

This is correct.

[time4fun]

Gallup has released (http://www.gallup.com/poll/214349/trump-averaged-higher-job-approval-states.aspx?g_source=Politics&g_medium=newsfeed&g_campaign=tiles)its state by state poll. Trump has a record low approval rating for a new President at this point in their first term, as we all know. In fact, he's only above 50% approval in 17 states, and he's under water in 31 states.

Though many of the states are exactly what you would expect (West Virginia loves him/California hates him), there are some states that are very interesting:

State Approval/Disapproval

Ohio 47/48 Ohio is staying surprisingly consistent in its support for Trump. He's only dropped 4.3% since November- that should be a concerning sign for Democrats.
AK 53/40 Trump is still obviously very safe here, but he's dropped 7% in 6 months, which is surprising.
IN 47/48 Trump won Indiana with 57% of the vote. He's dropped 10% in just 6 months and is basically breaking even-bad sign given this is one of the vulnerable Dem seats in 2018

PA 43/52 PA seems to be shifting back left rapidly at this point
GA 43/50 Being 7 points underwater in GA is a potentially concerning sign for Republicans who have been watching GA turn purple pretty rapidly
AZ 43/52 This is a VERY concerning sign for the GOP. Jeff Flake is considered to be one of the three GOP Senators who is vulnerable in 2018, and Trump may be speeding AZ up to purple
TX 42/51 Trump has dropped 10% in Texas in the last 6 months, and, Cruz (who isn't super popular) is potentially vulnerable in TX. Trump's low approval rating could hurt.
FL 42/51 Florida has rapidly dropped its support of Trump- which boades well for the Dems in 2018, who are feeling vulnerable in FL


If Trump's approval ratings stay low, and if Congressional Republicans keep pushing an unpopular agenda...Dems are setting up for a wave election in 2018. A lot can change between now and then, but at this point the GOP needs that to be true more than Dems.

[Methais]

If Trump's approval ratings stay low, and if Congressional Republicans keep pushing an unpopular agenda...Dems are setting up for a wave election in 2018. A lot can change between now and then, but at this point the GOP needs that to be true more than Dems.

What are the dems gonna run on? Trans bullshit and "We hate Trump like soooooo much you better vote for us or we'll block more traffic!!!!!"?

[Gelston]

What are the dems gonna run on? Trans bullshit and "We hate Trump like soooooo much you better vote for us or we'll block more traffic!!!!!"?

I heard they'll be stepping up their game and blocking trains soon.

[Methais]

I heard they'll be stepping up their game and blocking trains soon.

Why does the left hate trainsgenders? Trains are people too and they have feelings just like anyone else.

[drauz]

Why does the left hate trainsgenders? Trains are people too and they have feelings just like anyone else.

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/3b/7a/89/3b7a89e9220db908ece3680d3bad33a5--dankest-memes-funny-memes.jpg

[ClydeR]

Trump invoking his constitutional power of veto itself can NEVER be a crime. Nor would him not using said power somehow absolve him of some other crime.


Seriously? If somebody paid Trump $1 million to veto a bill, that wouldn't make it a crime?

[Tgo01]

Seriously? If somebody paid Trump $1 million to veto a bill, that wouldn't make it a crime?

You forgot to switch to your main account.

The crime in this scenario is someone bribing Trump. The crime is not Trump vetoing something.

[time4fun]

Seriously? If somebody paid Trump $1 million to veto a bill, that wouldn't make it a crime?

As usual, Tgo is factually incorrect.

It's like arguing that anytime a Judge renders a guilty verdict it's automatically okay because they're a judge. And yet, we have judges in jail for effectively selling verdicts.

Likewise, Presidents have the power to fire their staff. Yet, Nixon was impeached for doing just that. Trump is under investigation for the same.


The concept of abuse of power necessarily lives along with the concept of power. Anything done with corrupt purpose is illegal, as SCOTUS has made clear many times.

[Tgo01]

It's like arguing that anytime a Judge renders a guilty verdict it's automatically okay because they're a judge. And yet, we have judges in jail for effectively selling verdicts.

I can't believe I have to point this out again. The rendering of a guilty verdict isn't illegal, it's the act of bribing the judge that's illegal.

Also this isn't a very apt analogy because the judge could also be guilty of being biased in his judgements against minorities or Christians, which would be unconstitutional. Tell me, who could the president ever possibly be biased towards in using his veto powers? Hmmmmmmmmmm?

[time4fun]

I can't believe I have to point this out again. The rendering of a guilty verdict isn't illegal, it's the act of bribing the judge that's illegal.

Also this isn't a very apt analogy because the judge could also be guilty of being biased in his judgements against minorities or Christians, which would be unconstitutional. Tell me, who could the president ever possibly be biased towards in using his veto powers? Hmmmmmmmmmm?

Actually Tgo, it turns out that ACCEPTING bribes is illegal too. And in cases where Judges have been found guilty of accepting bribes for verdicts, the cases have to be retried. *Because the judgements were improperly made and are invalid*

Also, the act of passing a law out of animus towards a group isn't illegal. The legislation is unconstitutional. The act of passing legislation in order to benefit personally is, however, potentially illegal and punishable. Also, doing so in the capacity as a foreign agent is illegal and punishable.

THAT would be the better analogy.

[Tgo01]

Actually Tgo, it turns out that ACCEPTING bribes is illegal too.

No fucking shit?!?! You going for these stupid semantic wins again? God damn, I think it was pretty clear to everyone I meant the crime was the briber and the bribee. Holy fucking shit, you can't be this retarded. YOU CAN'T BE!


And in cases where Judges have been found guilty of accepting bribes for verdicts, the cases have to be retried. *Because the judgements were improperly made and are invalid*

Well yeah, because they broke the law! This is amazing. You aren't even attempting to argue with what I am saying, you are just throwing as many words at the screen as possible to appear as if what you're saying is smart.

Do something fun for me, time4fun. Show me a case where a judge was charged with a crime because of a verdict they rendered and it wasn't because they were bribed or were being prejudiced in their decisions. Just a simple "You rendered this verdict and that's a crime." Just one case, time4fun? Just one?


Also, doing so in the capacity as a foreign agent is illegal and punishable.

And once again, the act of voting for said legislation isn't the crime, it's that you are acting in a capacity for a foreign agent.

Again, stop with all of this distraction nonsense and just tell me how it can be a crime for a president to use his veto power. Just the act of using his veto power. Not him accepting a bribe and the bribe included him using his veto power. Not because the president really is a Russian agent.

Name the crime.

[Neveragain]

Gallup has released (http://www.gallup.com/poll/214349/trump-averaged-higher-job-approval-states.aspx?g_source=Politics&g_medium=newsfeed&g_campaign=tiles)its state by state poll. Trump has a record low approval rating for a new President at this point in their first term, as we all know. In fact, he's only above 50% approval in 17 states, and he's under water in 31 states.

Though many of the states are exactly what you would expect (West Virginia loves him/California hates him), there are some states that are very interesting:

State Approval/Disapproval

Ohio 47/48 Ohio is staying surprisingly consistent in its support for Trump. He's only dropped 4.3% since November- that should be a concerning sign for Democrats.
AK 53/40 Trump is still obviously very safe here, but he's dropped 7% in 6 months, which is surprising.
IN 47/48 Trump won Indiana with 57% of the vote. He's dropped 10% in just 6 months and is basically breaking even-bad sign given this is one of the vulnerable Dem seats in 2018

PA 43/52 PA seems to be shifting back left rapidly at this point
GA 43/50 Being 7 points underwater in GA is a potentially concerning sign for Republicans who have been watching GA turn purple pretty rapidly
AZ 43/52 This is a VERY concerning sign for the GOP. Jeff Flake is considered to be one of the three GOP Senators who is vulnerable in 2018, and Trump may be speeding AZ up to purple
TX 42/51 Trump has dropped 10% in Texas in the last 6 months, and, Cruz (who isn't super popular) is potentially vulnerable in TX. Trump's low approval rating could hurt.
FL 42/51 Florida has rapidly dropped its support of Trump- which boades well for the Dems in 2018, who are feeling vulnerable in FL


If Trump's approval ratings stay low, and if Congressional Republicans keep pushing an unpopular agenda...Dems are setting up for a wave election in 2018. A lot can change between now and then, but at this point the GOP needs that to be true more than Dems.

Trend lines don't agree with your analysis but I'm sure you know this as to why you only focus on Trumps approval rating. Since November Democrats have fallen 5 points in approval to Republicans 1 point, both parties are sitting at about a 40% rating as of May.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/210725/democratic-party-image-dips-gop-ratings-stable.aspx

You are very bad at setting aside your political affiliation when making these predictions and we will once again have to listen to your wailing and gnashing of teeth when Democrats lose even more power in 2018. The fact that Kid Rock is already 4 points ahead in the Senate race in Michigan should send you some kind of signal. Basically people are willing to vote for the Trailer Park boys over a Democrat politician.

You are out of touch, that is all.

[drauz]

You both agree that accepting and giving bribes are illegal. Next.

[Tgo01]

You both agree that accepting and giving bribes are illegal. Next.

Yes, but she is making the claim that sans a bribe a veto can still be illegal. I'm waiting for her explanation on this one.

[time4fun]

Yes, but she is making the claim that sans a bribe a veto can still be illegal. I'm waiting for her explanation on this one.

I said that anything done with corrupt purpose is illegal Tgo. The phrase "corrupt purpose" is wide on its face, though it IS often in reference to an action taken as a result of a quid pro quo, it can also be things like, say, obstruction of justice.

Sound familiar?

And to respond to your earlier post- BOTH the quid AND the quo are illegal in these situations. It's not just accepting the bribe (though yes, just accepting it is illegal), actions taken in response to the bribe are also illegal.

That shouldn't need to be explained to you.

[Tgo01]

I said that anything done with corrupt purpose is illegal Tgo.

So you're basically saying anything illegal is illegal? I kind of feel bad for those people saying you make good arguments.


The phrase "corrupt purpose" is wide on its face, though it IS often in reference to an action taken as a result of a quid pro quo, it can also be things like, say, obstruction of justice.

Again, just name the fucking crime. Barring any sort of bribe what possible crime could Trump commit by using his veto powers? And don't back track now, you said Trump would be in trouble legally speaking (paraphrasing here, don't recall exactly how you worded it) if he vetoed the Russian sanctions because it would look like he accepted a bribe or whatever. Except they would need actual proof of a bribe happening, they can't just say "Well shit! The president vetoed that bill? That doesn't look good." The investigators either have proof he accepted a bribe or they don't.


It's not just accepting the bribe (though yes, just accepting it is illegal), actions taken in response to the bribe are also illegal.

Again, name the crime. For the sake of argument let's say Trump really did accept a bribe to veto the Russian sanctions, and he vetoed the Russian sanctions. What would he be charged with other than accepting a bribe? What charge would stem directly from his action of vetoing the Russian sanctions?


That shouldn't need to be explained to you.

Talk about ironic.

[drauz]

Again, just name the fucking crime. Barring any sort of bribe what possible crime could Trump commit by using his veto powers? And don't back track now, you said Trump would be in trouble legally speaking (paraphrasing here, don't recall exactly how you worded it) if he vetoed the Russian sanctions because it would look like he accepted a bribe or whatever. Except they would need actual proof of a bribe happening, they can't just say "Well shit! The president vetoed that bill? That doesn't look good." The investigators either have proof he accepted a bribe or they don't.

She is talking about impeachment which isn't a criminal offense in the normal sense.

It'll never happen with the current information.

[Tgo01]

She is talking about impeachment which isn't a criminal offense in the normal sense.

I would imagine if Trump really did accept a bribe for issuing his veto power he would be impeached for the bribe.

[drauz]

I would imagine if Trump really did accept a bribe for issuing his veto power he would be impeached for the bribe.

Yes, everything would stem from the bribe and veto combo.

[Neveragain]

The moment Time4makebelieve realizes that the EU does not want these sanctions.

http://i.ytimg.com/vi/JqJ6B8HQb6U/0.jpg

http://www.cnn.com/2017/07/26/europe/russia-us-sanctions/index.html

The EU is obviously taking Russian bribes.

[time4fun]

She is talking about impeachment which isn't a criminal offense in the normal sense.

It'll never happen with the current information.

Sort of.

A crime is a crime is a crime. It's illegal to use your Constitutionally-provided authority with "corrupt purpose". Firing a staffer isn't illegal. Firing a staffer in an attempt to stop an active investigation into a member of your campaign IS illegal.

It's just that if you're a sitting President, the remedy for that illegal activity is impeachment. (Also the way Impeachment of structured, you don't have to have met the strict legal definition of a crime. It's for "high crimes and misdemeanors", but Congress decides what was a crime, not the Judiciary)

Having said that, once a President is removed from office- they can face criminal charges. Remember, Gerald Ford pardoned Nixon immediately upon becoming President (that's why his approval ratings were so historically low) because he knew Nixon would face criminal charges for his conduct afterwards.

[Tgo01]

The moment Time4makebelieve realizes that the EU does not want these sanctions.

http://i.ytimg.com/vi/JqJ6B8HQb6U/0.jpg

http://www.cnn.com/2017/07/26/europe/russia-us-sanctions/index.html

The EU is obviously taking Russian bribes.

I tried to tell her a few days ago that the rest of the world isn't on board with this Russian hate bullshit, but she just didn't wanna listen! She really does seem to think the world has come down with red fever, when in reality it's just the left in the US.

[Tgo01]

Firing a staffer isn't illegal. Firing a staffer in an attempt to stop an active investigation into a member of your campaign IS illegal.

No it isn't.

[time4fun]

I tried to tell her a few days ago that the rest of the world isn't on board with this Russian hate bullshit, but she just didn't wanna listen! She really does seem to think the world has come down with red fever, when in reality it's just the left in the US.

Do you understand why the EU doesn't want the US running forward with the sanctions?

They're afraid it'll affect THEIR business deals.

Do you know why I don't care? Because Russia is actively trying to destabilize our government (and that of half of the EU countries), and because Congress is the only entity that can stop Trump from removing Russian sanctions.

[Neveragain]

I tried to tell her a few days ago that the rest of the world isn't on board with this Russian hate bullshit, but she just didn't wanna listen! She really does seem to think the world has come down with red fever, when in reality it's just the left in the US.

That's because everyone but the alt-left isn't insane enough to risk global thermal nuclear war because Hillary Clinton lost an election.

[Tgo01]

Do you understand why the EU doesn't want the US running forward with the sanctions?

They're afraid it'll affect THEIR business deals.

...so...?


Do you know why I don't care? Because Russia is actively trying to destabilize our government, and because Congress is the only entity that can stop Trump from removing Russian sanctions.

Russia supposedly "meddled" in French and German elections and they aren't losing their shit over it. Why? Because they realize this happens all the damn time all over the world even between countries that are allies. Democrats just couldn't stand the thought that their precious Hillary lost so they are drumming up this whole Russian collusion nonsense because they are holding out hope that they can still put Hillary in the White House.

[time4fun]

No it isn't.

You're right, obstruction of justice isn't illegal at all.

And the DoJ isn't currently investigating Trump for doing exactly what you just said wasn't illegal.

And the DoJ spends a lot of time investigating things they know aren't actually illegal.

[Tgo01]

You're right, obstruction of justice isn't illegal at all.

It's not obstruction of justice. The president can fire whoever the hell he wants. You know what I mean, don't go for the easy semantic win.


And the DoJ isn't currently investigating Trump for doing exactly what you just said wasn't illegal.

Source? No, really, I want a source that the DoJ is considering charging Trump for firing Comey.

[Ashliana]

...so...?



Russia supposedly "meddled" in French and German elections and they aren't losing their shit over it. Why? Because they realize this happens all the damn time all over the world even between countries that are allies. Democrats just couldn't stand the thought that their precious Hillary lost so they are drumming up this whole Russian collusion nonsense because they are holding out hope that they can still put Hillary in the White House.

There's a difference between "meddling" and one of those sides actively colluding with a hostile foreign power, which is what we now have evidence of the Trump campaign doing.

Democrats didn't make up anything: the "meddling" is a fact. Trump's Director of National Intelligence has stated it unequivocally. CIA director Pompeo has stated it unequivocally.

What you don't want to believe -- out of petty, tribalist expedience -- reflects only on you.

[Tgo01]

There's a difference between "meddling" and one of those sides actively colluding with a hostile foreign power, which is what we now have evidence of the Trump campaign doing.

lol


Democrats didn't make up anything: the "meddling" is a fact. Trump's Director of National Intelligence has stated it unequivocally. CIA director Pompeo has stated it unequivocally.

Wait, you just used "meddling" in quotes in both sentences. Are you suggesting Trump's director of National Intelligence has stated there was active collusion going on between Russia and the Trump campaign?

If so, source?

[Ashliana]

It's not obstruction of justice. The president can fire whoever the hell he wants. You know what I mean, don't go for the easy semantic win.



Source? No, really, I want a source that the DoJ is considering charging Trump for firing Comey.

NYT:

"Did Trump have lawful authority to fire Comey?

Yes. But courts have ruled that otherwise lawful acts can constitute obstruction of justice if done with corrupt intentions. In a 1998 case, for example, a federal appeals court upheld the conviction of a lawyer who had filed legal complaints and related motions against a government agent who was investigating an illegal gambling operation. The court ruled that the defendant’s “nominally litigation-related conduct” was unlawful because his real motive was “to safeguard his personal financial interests” in the corrupt enterprise."

Mueller's probe could easily end Trump's presidency, and his subpoenas have the force of law, as well as the threat of perjury if people lie to it. It's a slow process. You're mind-blowingly stupid if you think Trump is in zero jeopardy, either legally or politically.

[Wrathbringer]

There's a difference between "meddling" and one of those sides actively colluding with a hostile foreign power, which is what we now have evidence of the Trump campaign doing.

Democrats didn't make up anything: the "meddling" is a fact. Trump's Director of National Intelligence has stated it unequivocally. CIA director Pompeo has stated it unequivocally.

What you don't want to believe -- out of petty, tribalist expedience -- reflects only on you.

You're retarded.

[time4fun]

NYT:

"Did Trump have lawful authority to fire Comey?

Yes. But courts have ruled that otherwise lawful acts can constitute obstruction of justice if done with corrupt intentions. In a 1998 case, for example, a federal appeals court upheld the conviction of a lawyer who had filed legal complaints and related motions against a government agent who was investigating an illegal gambling operation. The court ruled that the defendant’s “nominally litigation-related conduct” was unlawful because his real motive was “to safeguard his personal financial interests” in the corrupt enterprise."

Mueller's probe could easily end Trump's presidency, and his subpoenas have the force of law, as well as the threat of perjury if people lie to it. It's a slow process. You're mind-blowingly stupid if you think Trump is in zero jeopardy, either legally or politically.

Yeah. You're hitting on a really important scope shift in the conversation. The question of whether or not the President has the authority to do something is completely distinct from the question of whether it is legal to do something.

And in the whole Comey debate, this shift was on full display. The President and his surrogates were trying to turn the question into whether or not the President had the AUTHORITY to fire Comey and passing it off as the same as the question of whether it was LEGAL.

Yes, Trump had the AUTHORITY to fire Comey. Case and point- Comey no longer runs the FBI. But that doesn't mean it was LEGAL.

That's literally what corruption is. It is someone taking an action they have the authority to take but with corrupt purpose- which makes it illegal.

[Tgo01]

NYT:

"Did Trump have lawful authority to fire Comey?

Yes. But courts have ruled that otherwise lawful acts can constitute obstruction of justice if done with corrupt intentions. In a 1998 case, for example, a federal appeals court upheld the conviction of a lawyer who had filed legal complaints and related motions against a government agent who was investigating an illegal gambling operation. The court ruled that the defendant’s “nominally litigation-related conduct” was unlawful because his real motive was “to safeguard his personal financial interests” in the corrupt enterprise."

I think it's cute how the article first starts by saying Trump had the legal authority to fire Comey, then goes on to say "But it could still be illegal! Look at this example that doesn't include a boss firing a subordinate! Much less the president himself!"

That is totes adorbs, Ashlina. Post more shit like that.


Mueller's probe could easily end Trump's presidency

If that's what you need to keep hope alive in your life, Ashliana, then I'm not about to take this from you.

[Tgo01]

That's literally what corruption is. It is someone taking an action they have the authority to take but with corrupt purpose- which makes it illegal.

You're gonna need something YUGE to get "corruption" charges against someone because they fired someone else.

This is a stupid argument.

"Hey, Bob, I might have to fire you for incompetence. Sorry, bud."

"Oh I don't think so, Joe! I'm opening a totally bullshit investigation into you for some reason I just made up! I can now never be fired."

[Ashliana]

You're retarded.

The only retarded thing here is your comical inability to construct a counter-argument. There's a reason why you stick to calling people "retarded" -- you couldn't reason your way out of a wet paper bag.


I think it's cute how the article first starts by saying Trump had the legal authority to fire Comey, then goes on to say "But it could still be illegal! Look at this example that doesn't include a boss firing a subordinate! Much less the president himself!"

That is totes adorbs, Ashlina. Post more shit like that.

This is the biggest problem with "discussing" things with you -- your understanding is so poor, and you're so mindlessly argumentative, one has to simultaneously educate you AND respond to whatever totally arbitrary, completely nonsensical objections you bring up -- that are always rooted in your mind-blowing ignorance.

The fact that someone, generally, has the authority to fire someone doesn't mean that that action can never be illegal -- this doesn't just apply to the president. Even in "at will" employment states, like my own state of Virginia, there are circumstances in which it's illegal to fire someone. You can't fire someone for being black, or white, or a man, or a woman, or any other protected class. That's just one example.

The fact that, up until now, there hasn't been an example of a president so moronic that he'd fire an FBI director overseeing an investigation into the actions of him and his campaign, doesn't magically mean that the action won't eventually be considered, either wholly or in part, obstruction of justice. That's one of the reasons Mueller's probe exists.

[Wrathbringer]

The only retarded thing here is your comical inability to construct a counter-argument. There's a reason why you stick to calling people "retarded" -- you couldn't reason your way out of a wet paper bag.

Lol @your rep, Assliana.

[Ashliana]

Lol @your rep, Assliana.

I seriously wouldn't be surprised if you were a bot. You've got like two canned responses.

[Tgo01]

The fact that someone, generally, has the authority to fire someone doesn't mean that that action can never be illegal -- this doesn't just apply to the president.

You're right. For example you can't fire someone because of their race, religion, or other protected status.

You can't fire someone without just cause if they have a contract spelling out said just causes.

Barring obvious shit like that you're going to need to come up with a hell of a good reason to charge someone with a crime for firing someone. And no, that crime isn't "WAHHHH! HE'S TRUMP! HE STOLE THE ELECTION FROM HILLARY! WAHHH!"


The fact that, up until now, there hasn't been an example of a president so moronic that he'd fire an FBI director overseeing an investigation into the actions of him and his campaign

Wait, we talking about the same Comey who gave testimony under oath that Trump was NOT under investigation while he was the FBI director? You might want to sort out your fake news from the real news there, Ashliana.

[Ashliana]

You're right. For example you can't fire someone because of their race, religion, or other protected status.

You can't fire someone without just cause if they have a contract spelling out said just causes.

Barring obvious shit like that you're going to need to come up with a hell of a good reason to charge someone with a crime for firing someone. And no, that crime isn't "WAHHHH! HE'S TRUMP! HE STOLE THE ELECTION FROM HILLARY! WAHHH!"

Trump merely asking Comey to drop an investigation is obstruction of justice. Firing him with the express purpose of stopping a criminal investigation -- is similarly obstruction of justice. The trouble with obstruction is that it's hard to prove the person's intent -- under normal circumstances. Trump, however, explicitly admitted his motivation in doing so in the subsequent days following it.

You not knowing anything about the law doesn't absolve Trump. Mueller's probe exists for a reason.

[Ashliana]

Wait, we talking about the same Comey who gave testimony under oath that Trump was NOT under investigation while he was the FBI director? You might want to sort out your fake news from the real news there, Ashliana.

Spoiler Alert: Trump doesn't have to have been being investigated personally in order to have committed obstruction of justice. You might want to learn the first thing about the law there, Tgo. It is pretty funny, though, seeing you desperately flail from branch to branch as they continuously collapse from underneath you.

[Tgo01]

Trump merely asking Comey to drop an investigation is obstruction of justice.

No it's not.

[Tgo01]

Spoiler Alert: Trump doesn't have to have been being investigated personally in order to have committed obstruction of justice.

Why you backtracking and lashing out like a little bitch?

YOU said Trump was under investigation. Just act like a man, realize you made a mistake, own up to your mistakes, and move on.

[Ashliana]

No it's not.

Your unilateral declarations don't have the power to magically re-write reality. Yes, Trump asking Comey to drop the investigation constitutes obstruction of justice.

18 U.S.C. 1505 - "the defendant corruptly endeavored to influence, obstruct, or impede the due and proper administration of the law."

A president "asking" his subordinate to drop a criminal investigation, not to mention subsequently firing him expressly for the purposes of stopping it when he wouldn't do so willingly, is easily obstruction of justice.

You are an imbecile.

[Ashliana]

Why you backtracking and lashing out like a little bitch?

YOU said Trump was under investigation. Just act like a man, realize you made a mistake, own up to your mistakes, and move on.

I said "him and his campaign." You're ignoring the substance of what I said, as always, to seize upon the perceived rhetorical weakness, all the while demonstrating you don't know the first thing about the law. Whether or not Trump was under investigation personally doesn't mean anything -- even if he wasn't, that doesn't mean he didn't commit obstruction of justice.

[Tgo01]

18 U.S.C. 1505 - "the defendant corruptly endeavored to influence, obstruct, or impede the due and proper administration of the law."

Your only problem here is the president in this regard IS the law.

Was it "corrupt" and "obstruction of justice" when Obama said he wouldn't go after recreational pot users in states where it was legalized? Hmm? If Eric Holder said "Fuck you, Obummer! I'm gonna arrest those pricks anyways!" Would it have been "illegal" for Obama to fire Holder? No, of course not. Because the president sets the tone for where his DOJ should focus their efforts on.

Look, Ashliana, I know it sucks that you don't yet have a "GOTCHA!" moment for Trump. You never know! Maybe tomorrow he'll do something that is actually illegal and he will get impeached! Never give up hope!

[Ashliana]

Your only problem here is the president in this regard IS the law.

Was it "corrupt" and "obstruction of justice" when Obama said he wouldn't go after recreational pot users in states where it was legalized? Hmm? If Eric Holder said "Fuck you, Obummer! I'm gonna arrest those pricks anyways!" Would it have been "illegal" for Obama to fire Holder? No, of course not. Because the president sets the tone for where his DOJ should focus their efforts on.

Look, Ashliana, I know it sucks that you don't yet have a "GOTCHA!" moment for Trump. You never know! Maybe tomorrow he'll do something that is actually illegal and he will get impeached! Never give up hope!

You're conflating policy (i.e., ordering the Justice Department to focus their limited dollars on what to prioritize) with a president directly applying pressure to stop a specific, singular investigation into the wrongdoing of friends, family, colleagues, even a campaign he himself was involved in, etc. If Obama had intervened with Holder to stop an investigation into an investigation of one of his daughters, then yes, that would've been obstruction of justice, too. Except that never happened.

We already have the "gotcha" moment for Trump -- comically, he blurted it out in an interview (http://www.nbcnews.com/nightly-news/video/pres-trump-s-extended-exclusive-interview-with-lester-holt-at-the-white-house-941854787582) in the subsequent days. Perhaps you should try reading.

[Tgo01]

I said "him and his campaign."

Welcome back to "Ashlianas in the wild."

Here we have a look at Ashliana in his natural environment. If we watch closely we can see him literally try to change the English language by claiming that saying "him (Trump) and his campaign" was indeed not saying Trump was under investigation.

It's fascinating the shit you see on "Ashlianas in the wild." Perhaps next we'll see him talk more about how firing someone is illegal and a crime.

[Tgo01]

You're conflating policy (i.e., ordering the Justice Department to focus their limited dollars on what to prioritize) with a president directly applying pressure to stop a specific, singular investigation into the wrongdoing of friends, family, colleagues, even a campaign he himself was involved in, etc. If Obama had intervened with Holder to stop an investigation into an investigation of one of his daughters, then yes, that would've been obstruction of justice, too. Except that never happened.

It's funny, you have to make up a totally fake "analogy" that you know never happened so you can safely say "Yes, if my own personal Lord and Savior Obama did the same thing then I would be against that too!"

Yet when I provided you with a real analogy, something that actually happened, you hand wave it away and say "That's not a very apt analogy."

Because of course not! It's much easier to just make up an argument then actually deal with the very real analogy I gave you.

Just answer the question, Ashliana. Be a man for just once in your life. If Holder decided to go after pot smokers in Colorado anyway, do you think Obama would have been within his right to fire Holder, or would that have been an obstruction of justice as well?

The clock's ticking!

[Ashliana]

Welcome back to "Ashlianas in the wild."

Here we have a look at Ashliana in his natural environment. If we watch closely we can see him literally try to change the English language by claiming that saying "him (Trump) and his campaign" was indeed not saying Trump was under investigation.

It's fascinating the shit you see on "Ashlianas in the wild." Perhaps next we'll see him talk more about how firing someone is illegal and a crime.

You're really bad at reading. Again, Trump ostensibly not being under investigation personally doesn't preclude him from having committed obstruction of justice. And we've already talked about how firing someone is illegal under varying circumstances.

Perhaps next time you won't try to substitute your total lack of knowledge regarding the law with tribalist apologia.

[Tgo01]

Again, Trump ostensibly not being under investigation personally doesn't preclude him from having committed obstruction of justice.

You're absolutely right. I just want you to admit you interjected fake news in your other post because you get all of your news from blackmail news.

Just admit you were wrong. Why can't you do that?

[Ashliana]

It's funny, you have to make up a totally fake "analogy" that you know never happened so you can safely say "Yes, if my own personal Lord and Savior Obama did the same thing then I would be against that too!"

Yet when I provided you with a real analogy, something that actually happened, you hand wave it away and say "That's not a very apt analogy."

Because of course not! It's much easier to just make up an argument then actually deal with the very real analogy I gave you.

Just answer the question, Ashliana. Be a man for just once in your life. If Holder decided to go after pot smokers in Colorado anyway, do you think Obama would have been within his right to fire Holder, or would that have been an obstruction of justice as well?

The clock's ticking!

The ability of a president to set priorities of what to do with a department's budget is in no way, shape or form even remotely close to Trump trying to shut down an investigation into the wrongdoing of his colleagues/family/friends/potentially even himself.

Your inability to draw apples to apples comparisons isn't my problem. You can't do so, because Obama didn't commit obstruction of justice and Trump did. Your reasoning here is comically poor.

[Ashliana]

You're absolutely right. I just want you to admit you interjected fake news in your other post because you get all of your news from blackmail news.

Just admit you were wrong. Why can't you do that?

And what, pray tell, "fake news," would that be?

[Tgo01]

The ability of a president to set priorities of what to do with a department's budget is in no way, shape or form even remotely close to Trump trying to shut down an investigation into the wrongdoing of his colleagues/family/friends/potentially even himself.

Your inability to draw apples to apples comparisons isn't my problem. You can't do so, because Obama didn't commit obstruction of justice and Trump did. Your reasoning here is comically poor.

Just answer the question, Ashliana. Be a man for just once in your life. If Holder decided to go after pot smokers in Colorado anyway, do you think Obama would have been within his right to fire Holder, or would that have been an obstruction of justice as well?

[Tgo01]

And what, pray tell, "fake news," would that be?

That Trump was personally under investigation while Comey was the FBI director. I thought that was pretty obvious by now. But seeing as you apparently get all of your "news" from blackmail news I'm not surprised you haven't yet caught up with the real world.

[Ashliana]

Just answer the question, Ashliana. Be a man for just once in your life. If Holder decided to go after pot smokers in Colorado anyway, do you think Obama would have been within his right to fire Holder, or would that have been an obstruction of justice as well?

Perhaps you should learn to read responses when you're given them. Just because you don't like the answer doesn't change anything. Your failure to understand the concept of executive discretion, and your subsequent failure to distinguish it from obstruction of justice, reflects only on you.


That Trump was personally under investigation while Comey was the FBI director. I thought that was pretty obvious by now. But seeing as you apparently get all of your "news" from blackmail news I'm not surprised you haven't yet caught up with the real world.

:rofl: You seized upon two words in a sentence I hastily wrote because you sincerely thought, at the time, that Trump "not being investigated personally" somehow meant he couldn't be committing obstruction of justice. That, my deluded friend, is a spectacular failure on your part. Trump committed obstruction of justice. Mueller's probe is examining the depth of their actions, and, again, if you think he isn't in legal or political jeopardy, you're exactly as willfully ignorant as I suspect.

[Wrathbringer]

You're really bad at reading. Again, Trump ostensibly not being under investigation personally doesn't preclude him from having committed obstruction of justice. And we've already talked about how firing someone is illegal under varying circumstances.

Perhaps next time you won't try to substitute your total lack of knowledge regarding the law with tribalist apologia.

Lol @your rep

[Ashliana]

Lol @your rep

lol@your continued inability to respond substantively

[Tgo01]

Perhaps you should learn to read responses when you're given them. Just because you don't like the answer doesn't change anything. Your failure to understand the concept of executive discretion, and your subsequent failure to distinguish it from obstruction of justice, reflects only on you.

Just answer the question, Ashliana. Be a man for just once in your life. If Holder decided to go after pot smokers in Colorado anyway, do you think Obama would have been within his right to fire Holder, or would that have been an obstruction of justice as well?


:rofl: You seized upon two words in a sentence I hastily wrote because you sincerely thought, at the time, that Trump "not being investigated personally" somehow meant he couldn't be committing obstruction of justice. That, my deluded friend, is a spectacular failure on your part. Trump committed obstruction of justice. Mueller's probe is examining the depth of their actions, and, again, if you think he isn't in legal or political jeopardy, you're exactly as willfully ignorant as I suspect.

Just admit you were wrong. Why can't you do that?

[Wrathbringer]

lol@your continued inability to respond substantively

Lol @ your continued use of the word substantively.

[time4fun]

Wait, we talking about the same Comey who gave testimony under oath that Trump was NOT under investigation while he was the FBI director? You might want to sort out your fake news from the real news there, Ashliana.

Um..it's been extensivey reported (https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/special-counsel-is-investigating-trump-for-possible-obstruction-of-justice/2017/06/14/9ce02506-5131-11e7-b064-828ba60fbb98_story.html?nid&utm_term=.077272c2e2f1) that Trump IS personally under investigation for obstruction of justice right now.

Seriously- rethink your sources.

[Tgo01]

Um..it's been extensivey reported (https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/special-counsel-is-investigating-trump-for-possible-obstruction-of-justice/2017/06/14/9ce02506-5131-11e7-b064-828ba60fbb98_story.html?nid&utm_term=.077272c2e2f1) that Trump IS personally under investigation for obstruction of justice right now.

Can you read?


Wait, we talking about the same Comey who gave testimony under oath that Trump was NOT under investigation while he was the FBI director?

Maybe if I bold every other word for you like Ashliana does you'll see how stupid you now sound.

[Ashliana]

Just answer the question, Ashliana. Be a man for just once in your life. If Holder decided to go after pot smokers in Colorado anyway, do you think Obama would have been within his right to fire Holder, or would that have been an obstruction of justice as well?

Just admit you were wrong. Why can't you do that?

Ah, the part where you can't come up with anything to say, so you just keep repeating yourself. You not wanting to read what I wrote to you in response reflects only on you, buddy. You offered what you quite moronically thought was a defense of Trump, reasoning why he couldn't have committed obstruction of justice -- and failed. What are you going to say when people in his campaign -- or Trump himself -- eventually get indicted?

[Tgo01]

Ah, the part where you can't come up with anything to say, so you just keep repeating yourself.

I'm repeating myself because I'm not going to let you distract me into more bullshit because you want to ignore my arguments when they are too inconvenient for you.

Just answer the question, Ashliana. Be a man for just once in your life. If Holder decided to go after pot smokers in Colorado anyway, do you think Obama would have been within his right to fire Holder, or would that have been an obstruction of justice as well?

Just admit you were wrong. Why can't you do that?

[Ashliana]

I'm repeating myself because I'm not going to let you distract me into more bullshit because you want to ignore my arguments when they are too inconvenient for you.

Just answer the question, Ashliana. Be a man for just once in your life. If Holder decided to go after pot smokers in Colorado anyway, do you think Obama would have been within his right to fire Holder, or would that have been an obstruction of justice as well?

Just admit you were wrong. Why can't you do that?

Nope. You're double, quadrouple, octupling down on yet another "argument" that is comically poorly reasoned -- you think, somehow, your analogy absolves Trump of obviously committing obstruction of justice, when in reality you simply don't understand what executive discretion is. I already gave you your answer -- you just didn't like that it didn't read "HURRR YOU'RE RIGHT, TRUMP DIDN'T COMMIT OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE" and you're throwing a temper tantrum.

Try again.

[Savageheart]

Because you create false equivalences and believe they entitle you to some alternative reality?

[Tgo01]

Nope. You're double, quadrouple, octupling down on yet another "argument" that is comically poorly reasoned -- you think, somehow, your analogy absolves Trump of obviously committing obstruction of justice, when in reality you simply don't understand what executive discretion is. I already gave you your answer -- you just didn't like that it didn't read "HURRR YOU'RE RIGHT, TRUMP DIDN'T COMMIT OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE" and you're throwing a temper tantrum.

Try again.

Just answer the question, Ashliana. Be a man for just once in your life. If Holder decided to go after pot smokers in Colorado anyway, do you think Obama would have been within his right to fire Holder, or would that have been an obstruction of justice as well?

Just admit you were wrong. Why can't you do that?

[Savageheart]

Those two things are not related and one of them never happened. More to the point it would be an accurate conversation if you asked if Holder had recused himself from a Formal Investigation on Obama and THEN Obama fired him.

You're not only wrong TG you're actually terrible at crafting a coherent article.

[Tgo01]

Because you create false equivalences and believe they entitle you to some alternative reality?

Right. "False equivalences."

Ashliana: OMG! TOTALLY ILLEGAL TO FIRE COMEY! OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE!

Me: Would it have been illegal for Obama to have fired Holder if he decided to enforce federal marijuana laws in Colorado?

Savageheart: False equivalence!

Maybe you can give a more in depth answer than our resident lunatic Ashliana, Savageheart.

How is it obstruction of justice to fire Comey, but not an obstruction of justice for Obama to literally state he would not enforce federal marijuana law in Colorado?

[Tgo01]

Those two things are not related and one of them never happened.

How is the president declaring he would not enforce federal law not related to the president supposedly committing obstruction of justice by firing someone?

I mean in the sense that firing someone in and of itself is an obstruction of justice is a laughable notion I agree, but I'm trying to show Ashliana (and now you too apparently) how stupid you are.

But it is pretty telling, Savageheart, that you can't actually craft an argument of your own, all you can do is tell me I'm not crafting an argument.

So adorable, little Savageheart! Come over here and let me pinch those cheeks!

[Savageheart]

I outlined your false equivalency if you cannot read, or live in a world where factual arguments do not appear on your screen I can't help you. Then again I don't really want to.

[Tgo01]

I outlined your false equivalency if you cannot read, or live in a world where factual arguments do not appear on your screen I can't help you. Then again I don't really want to.

Oh that's cute, you edited your post with more "information."


Those two things are not related and one of them never happened. More to the point it would be an accurate conversation if you asked if Holder had recused himself from a Formal Investigation on Obama and THEN Obama fired him.

You're not only wrong TG you're actually terrible at crafting a coherent article.

Where to even begin with this bullshit. First of all just SAYING the two aren't related isn't an an argument and is by no means "outlining" my "false equivalency." Also why does it matter if one of them never happened? That's why it's called an analogy, they aren't going to be exactly the same. If you need help understanding what an analogy is let me know, because it's pretty apparent you don't understand what an analogy or false equivalence is.

As to the part you added in a laughable attempt to "explain" why I'm wrong, no, see, that's not an apt analogy, because as I had to point out to dipshit Ashliana, Trump was NOT under investigation when Comey was fired.

So let's see. In both scenarios (Comey being fired and my hypothetical scenario of Holder being fired), we have the president firing someone for investigating crimes people other than the president may have committed and yet...the two scenarios aren't comparable.

Yeah, not buying it, Savageheart. Maybe try avoiding using phrases you don't understand and you can save yourself some embarrassment in the future.

[Savageheart]

Analogies fall apart when they have no corollary which yours does not.

You described two things poorly that did not have similar features or outcomes.

I gave you the proper corollary and you further ignored it. Facts matter. Your junior debate team bullshit does not.

[Tgo01]

Analogies fall apart when they have no corollary which yours does not.

Stop using big words you do not understand.


You described two things poorly that did not have similar features or outcomes.

I explained how they are the exact same fucking thing. Can you actually form an argument that doesn't just boil down to "NUH-UH! YOU'RE WRONG!" This is pathetic.


I gave you the proper corollary and you further ignored it. Facts matter. Your junior debate team bullshit does not.

Because your "proper" analogy was not proper at all because in your scenario Obama was under investigation at the time of said firing. Trump was not under investigation at the time of said firing.

For someone who claims to love facts so much it's kind of funny watching you literally disagree with facts. Tell us more about big words and phrases you don't understand.

[Savageheart]

They are not the 'exact same fucking thing' you've lost your shit. Good day ole boy.

[Tgo01]

They are not the 'exact same fucking thing' you've lost your shit. Good day ole boy.

Me: Here's a scenario in which the president fired someone for investigating crimes other people may have committed. Here's a hypothetical situation in which the president fired someone for investigating crimes other people may have committed.
Savageheart: It's not the same thing! It's not the same! That's impossible! RRRREEEEEEEEE!

[Ashliana]

Just answer the question, Ashliana. Be a man for just once in your life. If Holder decided to go after pot smokers in Colorado anyway, do you think Obama would have been within his right to fire Holder, or would that have been an obstruction of justice as well?

Just admit you were wrong. Why can't you do that?

If you copy and paste a response to me, I'm going to start doing the same to you. You not liking the answer isn't the same thing as my not giving one, and you not understanding that your question in no way, shape or form has anything to do with Trump's obstruction of justice only reflects on you.


I mean in the sense that firing someone in and of itself is an obstruction of justice is a laughable notion I agree

Same NYT article I referenced earlier:

"Courts have ruled that otherwise lawful acts can constitute obstruction of justice if done with corrupt intentions."

Sam Buell, the federal prosecutor who led the case against Enron and now teaches law at Duke, agrees, especially since Trump explicitly admitted his motivation for firing Comey. There are dozens of other prominent legal scholars that agree. Establishing the accused's state of mind is normally the difficult part, which Trump moronically blurted out in the interview I already linked you to.

The fact that this is so difficult for you to grasp is comical, but unsurprising.

[Tgo01]

If you copy and paste a response to me, I'm going to start doing the same to you. You not liking the answer isn't the same thing as my not giving one, and you not understanding that your question in no way, shape or form has anything to do with Trump's obstruction of justice only reflects on you.



Same NYT article I referenced earlier:

"Courts have ruled that otherwise lawful acts can constitute obstruction of justice if done with corrupt intentions."

Sam Buell, the federal prosecutor who led the case against Enron and now teaches law at Duke, agrees, especially since Trump explicitly admitted his motivation for firing Comey. There are dozens of other prominent legal scholars that agree. Establishing the accused's state of mind is normally the difficult part, which Trump moronically blurted out in the interview I already linked you to.

The fact that this is so difficult for you to grasp is comical, but unsurprising.

Just answer the question, Ashliana. Be a man for just once in your life. If Holder decided to go after pot smokers in Colorado anyway, do you think Obama would have been within his right to fire Holder, or would that have been an obstruction of justice as well?

Just admit you were wrong. Why can't you do that?

[Ashliana]

Me: Here's a scenario in which the president fired someone for investigating crimes other people may have committed. Here's a hypothetical situation in which the president fired someone for investigating crimes other people may have committed.
Savageheart: It's not the same thing! It's not the same! That's impossible! RRRREEEEEEEEE!

More accurate:

Tgo01: Here's an actual scenario in which the president fired someone for investigating crimes that Trump has a personal and political stake in obstructing. Here's a hypothetical situation in which a president laid out his executive priorities for the FBI in terms of how they should focus their limited budget.

Everyone else: Those two aren't even remotely the same thing.

Tgo01: WHAT!??!?!?!? THOSE ARE TOTALLY THE SAME THING! REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE! REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!


Just answer the question, Ashliana. Be a man for just once in your life. If Holder decided to go after pot smokers in Colorado anyway, do you think Obama would have been within his right to fire Holder, or would that have been an obstruction of justice as well?

Just admit you were wrong. Why can't you do that?

You refusing to read the answer I gave you isn't the same thing as my not giving one, and you not understanding that your question in no way, shape or form has anything to do with Trump's obstruction of justice only reflects on you.

[Tgo01]

More accurate:

Tgo01: Here's an actual scenario in which the president fired someone for investigating crimes that Trump has a personal and political stake in obstructing. Here's a hypothetical situation in which a president laid out his executive priorities for the FBI in terms of how they should focus their limited budget.

Everyone else: Those two aren't even remotely the same thing.

Tgo01: WHAT!??!?!?!? THOSE ARE TOTALLY THE SAME THING! REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE! REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!



You refusing to read the answer I gave you isn't the same thing as my not giving one, and you not understanding that your question in no way, shape or form has anything to do with Trump's obstruction of justice only reflects on you.

Just answer the question, Ashliana. Be a man for just once in your life. If Holder decided to go after pot smokers in Colorado anyway, do you think Obama would have been within his right to fire Holder, or would that have been an obstruction of justice as well?

Just admit you were wrong. Why can't you do that?

[time4fun]

Right. "False equivalences."

Ashliana: OMG! TOTALLY ILLEGAL TO FIRE COMEY! OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE!

Me: Would it have been illegal for Obama to have fired Holder if he decided to enforce federal marijuana laws in Colorado?

Savageheart: False equivalence!

Maybe you can give a more in depth answer than our resident lunatic Ashliana, Savageheart.

How is it obstruction of justice to fire Comey, but not an obstruction of justice for Obama to literally state he would not enforce federal marijuana law in Colorado?

Um.

Okay, so here's a tip on dealing with parallel reasoning arguments. Try to abstract the specific situation into something more generalized. Then it's easier to match it up to another situation to see if it "fits".

So- Trump fires Comey

1)President's campaign is being investigated by an agency overseen by member of President's staff.
2) President demands staffer ends investigation for personal reasons
3) Staffer refuses.
4) President fires staffer.
5) Obstruction Charges

Now let's take a look at your Obama hypothetical

1) President's staffer is refusing to enforce law X
2) President demands staffer enforce law X for reasons related to the merits of the law
3) Staffer refuses
4) President fires staffer
5) No obstruction Charges

You can't just look at the fact that there are SOME simiarities and then decide the situations are analogous. You have to pay attention to the dissimilarities in order to make that judgement.

And this is actually a good representation of how your mind works in these things. You're the king of confirmation bias and struggle with big picture thinking. You look at bits and pieces of arguments, pick up on what seems to fit your narrative, and then you disregard the rest. And in doing so, you often misinterpret the pieces you DO pick up on because you're missing the context you need to make sense of them.

I used to see this in my lower achieving students all the time. Pause and paraphrase as you read things- convert the small pieces into bigger chunks and combine them together.

[Ashliana]

Just answer the question, Ashliana. Be a man for just once in your life. If Holder decided to go after pot smokers in Colorado anyway, do you think Obama would have been within his right to fire Holder, or would that have been an obstruction of justice as well?

Just admit you were wrong. Why can't you do that?

You refusing to read the answer I gave you isn't the same thing as my not giving one, and you not understanding that your question in no way, shape or form has anything to do with Trump's obstruction of justice only reflects on you.

Try again.

[Tgo01]

1) President's staffer is refusing to enforce law X
2) President demands staffer enforce law X for reasons related to the merits of the law
3) Staffer refuses
4) President fires staffer
5) No obstruction Charges

If you're going to talk down to me can you at least get my argument right? Holy shit. You're saying the exact opposite of what I actually said. I see you're becoming more and more like your LNet boyfriend everyday.


You refusing to read the answer I gave you isn't the same thing as my not giving one, and you not understanding that your question in no way, shape or form has anything to do with Trump's obstruction of justice only reflects on you.

Try again.

Just answer the question, Ashliana. Be a man for just once in your life. If Holder decided to go after pot smokers in Colorado anyway, do you think Obama would have been within his right to fire Holder, or would that have been an obstruction of justice as well?

Just admit you were wrong. Why can't you do that?

[Ashliana]

Just answer the question, Ashliana. Be a man for just once in your life. If Holder decided to go after pot smokers in Colorado anyway, do you think Obama would have been within his right to fire Holder, or would that have been an obstruction of justice as well?

Just admit you were wrong. Why can't you do that?

You refusing to read the answer I gave you isn't the same thing as my not giving one, and you not understanding that your question in no way, shape or form has anything to do with Trump's obstruction of justice only reflects on you.

Try again. I guarantee I can do this longer than you can.

[Tgo01]

You refusing to read the answer I gave you isn't the same thing as my not giving one, and you not understanding that your question in no way, shape or form has anything to do with Trump's obstruction of justice only reflects on you.

Try again. I guarantee I can do this longer than you can.

Just answer the question, Ashliana. Be a man for just once in your life. If Holder decided to go after pot smokers in Colorado anyway, do you think Obama would have been within his right to fire Holder, or would that have been an obstruction of justice as well?

Just admit you were wrong. Why can't you do that?

[Ashliana]

Just answer the question, Ashliana. Be a man for just once in your life. If Holder decided to go after pot smokers in Colorado anyway, do you think Obama would have been within his right to fire Holder, or would that have been an obstruction of justice as well?

Just admit you were wrong. Why can't you do that?

You refusing to read the answer I gave you isn't the same thing as my not giving one, and you not understanding that your question in no way, shape or form has anything to do with Trump's obstruction of justice only reflects on you.

Try again.

[Methais]

The only retarded thing here is your comical inability to construct a counter-argument. There's a reason why you stick to calling people "retarded" -- you couldn't reason your way out of a wet paper bag.


I seriously wouldn't be surprised if you were a bot. You've got like two canned responses.

It's pretty amazing that you idiots are so full of yourselves and so omgserious that you still haven't realized you're being trolled and take the bait almost every single time. :lol:

[Ashliana]

It's pretty amazing that you idiots are so full of yourselves and so omgserious that you still haven't realized you're being trolled and take the bait almost every single time. :lol:

Who cares? This is a shitposting forum. One can shitpost while still blowing the water out of the "arguments" the prolifically posting Trump apologists on the board shit out.

[Methais]

Who cares? This is a shitposting forum. One can shitpost while still blowing the water out of the "arguments" the prolifically posting Trump apologists on the board shit out.

I didn't say I cared. I find your stupidity quite entertaining and I hope you never stop.

Your response also has nothing to do with you being too retarded to realize you're being trolled.


Thread: A Thread for Trump's Self-Inflicted Wound of the Day
"lol" - Go fuck yourself, you ignorant twat.

This is serious business. Someone plz ban Ashliana for hate speech.

[Ashliana]

I didn't say I cared. I find your stupidity quite entertaining and I hope you never stop.

Your response also has nothing to do with you being too retarded to realize you're being trolled.

Whatever you say. Whether Tgo (or any of the rest of you) is being deliberately OR inadvertently stupid, wrecking his/your house of cards is entertaining either way.

[Wrathbringer]

Whatever you say. Whether Tgo (or any of the rest of you) is being deliberately OR inadvertently stupid, wrecking his/your house of cards is entertaining either way.

You're retarded.

[Ashliana]

You're retarded.

Please consult one of these. https://www.freeonlinemirror.com/img/mirror.jpg

Or a psychiatrist.

[Methais]

Please consult one of these. https://www.freeonlinemirror.com/img/mirror.jpg

Or a psychiatrist.

I like how you still don't get it.

And lol @ you wrecking anything except maybe a box of Kleenex during hentai time.

[Wrathbringer]

Please consult one of these. https://www.freeonlinemirror.com/img/mirror.jpg

Or a psychiatrist.

You're stupid, too.

[Wrathbringer]

Who cares? This is a shitposting forum. One can shitpost while still blowing the water out of the "arguments" the prolifically posting Trump apologists on the board shit out.

You don't blow the water out of an argument(lol you retard); you blow arguments out of the water. Derpderp.

[Ashliana]

You don't blow the water out of an argument(lol you retard); you blow arguments out of the water. Derpderp.

You got me! Ten points to Slytherin.

[Parkbandit]

Just answer the question, Ashliana. Be a man for just once in your life.

Whoa.. whoa... WHOA!

You know that's not possible.

Stop being rude.

[time4fun]

You got me! Ten points to Slytherin.

OMG, I just spit up my apple juice when I read that.

I wish I could give you more positive rep, but I have to spread it around first.

[Wrathbringer]

OMG, I just spit up my apple juice when I read that.

I wish I could give you more positive rep, but I have to spread it around first.

Yeah, because that was funny? No...

[Methais]

Yeah, because that was funny? No...

Give her a break, it was her first time trying to laugh at something. She doesn't really get how it works yet but at least she tried.

Baby steps.

[Tenlaar]

http://thehill.com/homenews/news/350026-trump-company-hires-chinese-government-owned-firm-despite-promise-report

President Trump's family business reportedly hired a construction company owned by the Chinese government to work on a project even though Trump promised it would not work with any foreign entities while he was in the White House.

A $32 million contract was awarded to the Middle East subsidiary of China State Construction Engineering Corporation by DAMAC Properties, the Trump Organization's partner, according to McClatchy.

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/despite-controversy-floridas-ag-accepts-role-trump-panel

* Late August 2013: Bondi reached out to Trump, seeking financial support for her 2014 re-election campaign in Florida.

* Sept. 13, 2013: Bondi’s AG office acknowledged that it was investigating fraud allegations against “Trump University.”

* Sept. 17, 2013: Trump’s charitable foundation, which is legally prohibited from donating to political campaigns, cut a $25,000 check for a group supporting Bondi’s campaign. (The foundation later paid a fine to the IRS for the illegal donation.)

* Oct. 15, 2013: Bondi’s office reversed course and said it wasn’t pursuing allegations made against “Trump University.”

* March 2014: Trump offered Bondi’s re-election campaign a generous deal while renting out his Mar-a-Lago resort in Florida.

Now, the president has extended a new benefit to Bondi: a role on a high-profile federal commission, which happens to be nearly finished with its work.

[Androidpk]

WASHINGTON — The acting head of the Drug Enforcement Administration will resign at the end of the week, according to law enforcement officials, who said he had become convinced that President Trump had little respect for the law.

[Tgo01]

WASHINGTON — The acting head of the Drug Enforcement Administration will resign at the end of the week, according to law enforcement officials, who said he had become convinced that President Trump had little respect for the law.

How is this a Trump self-inflicted wound? More like another moron playing politics looking to make a name for himself by bashing Trump while not providing any evidence to back up their suggestions.

Oh wait, that's you in a nutshell. No wonder you think this is news.

[Androidpk]

How is this a Trump self-inflicted wound? More like another moron playing politics looking to make a name for himself by bashing Trump while not providing any evidence to back up their suggestions.

Oh wait, that's you in a nutshell. No wonder you think this is news.

Yes, all criticism against Trump is just made up. You are a sad little man.

[Tgo01]

Yes, all criticism against Trump is just made up. You are a sad little man.

No, not all criticism against Trump is just made up. But it sure would be awesome if this guy could have presented just ONE instance of Trump having little respect for the law. Maybe you can do his job for him? But I'm guessing not.

[Androidpk]

Cry more snowflake.

[Tgo01]

Cry more snowflake.

That's what I thought.

http://www.flubu.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/pigeon-chess.jpg

[Tenlaar]

WASHINGTON — The acting head of the Drug Enforcement Administration is resigning, he said in an email Tuesday, a few weeks after he complained that President Donald Trump appeared to have "condoned police misconduct."

In the email to DEA staffers, Chuck Rosenberg, who became acting administrator in 2015, gave no reason for his departure, which takes effect on Sunday.

A spokesperson for the DEA confirmed Rosenberg's resignation but wouldn't comment on a report in The New York Times, which quoted law enforcement officials as saying Rosenberg had become convinced that Trump "had little respect for the law."

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/dea-chief-resigns-after-criticizing-trump-remarks-police-conduct-n804981

[Gelston]

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/dea-chief-resigns-after-criticizing-trump-remarks-police-conduct-n804981

Good job on being a day behind.

[Methais]

Good job on being a day behind.

Yesterday's news is still news! Why are you so racist against past events?

[Gelston]

Yesterday's news is still news! Why are you so racist against past events?

Because it was already posted in this very thread yesterday?

[Methais]

Because it was already posted in this very thread yesterday?

Racist.

[Tenlaar]

What PK posted is that "officials" were saying he was going to resign. What I posted was him confirming it himself.

Good job on not realizing the difference.

[Androidpk]

Washington (CNN)President Donald Trump on Sunday again mocked North Korean leader Kim Jong Un and said Secretary of State Rex Tillerson should not bother trying to negotiate with him in an effort to stop the country's development of nuclear weapons.

"I told Rex Tillerson, our wonderful Secretary of State, that he is wasting his time trying to negotiate with Little Rocket Man..." Trump said on Twitter.
He continued, "...Save your energy Rex, we'll do what has to be done!"



i wasn't surprised when Trump won in 2016 but I'll be surprised if he wins re-election.

[Methais]

Washington (CNN)President Donald Trump on Sunday again mocked North Korean leader Kim Jong Un and said Secretary of State Rex Tillerson should not bother trying to negotiate with him in an effort to stop the country's development of nuclear weapons.

"I told Rex Tillerson, our wonderful Secretary of State, that he is wasting his time trying to negotiate with Little Rocket Man..." Trump said on Twitter.
He continued, "...Save your energy Rex, we'll do what has to be done!"



i wasn't surprised when Trump won in 2016 but I'll be surprised if he wins re-election.

I won't.

[Androidpk]

President Donald Trump tweeted on Tuesday morning (http://www.businessinsider.com/trump-bob-corker-new-york-times-interview-world-war-iii-2017-10) that The New York Times "set Liddle' Bob Corker up by recording his conversation."

But by Tuesday afternoon, The Times had released audio (https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/10/reader-center/trump-claims-we-tricked-bob-corker-heres-the-truth.html?_r=0) of the senator explicitly asking for his bombshell interview, published Sunday, to be recorded.

"I know they're recording it," Corker said (https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/10/reader-center/trump-claims-we-tricked-bob-corker-heres-the-truth.html?_r=0) of his aides who were on the line with him along with a Times reporter. "And I hope you are, too."

[Androidpk]

Donald Trump (http://www.independent.co.uk/topic/DonaldTrump) has threatened to shut down NBC and other American networks, saying that they peddle fake news.

"With all of the Fake News coming out of NBC and the Networks, at what point is it appropriate to challenge their License? Bad for country!" Mr Trump wrote in a tweet.

Mr Trump's tweet came in response to a story written by NBC, which said that Mr Trump had sought to increase America's nuclear arsenal tenfold after taking a look at a briefing slide that showed stead reduction of the US nuclear arsenal since the 1960s. The story cited three officials who were reportedly in the room when Mr Trump made the comments.

[Ardwen]

He just doubled down on the media threat, then retweeted his appearance on Hannity.....

[Fortybox]

He just doubled down on the media threat, then retweeted his appearance on Hannity.....

He isn't referring to all media Ardwen. C'mon now...don't channel time4fun stupidity.

[Viekn]

He isn't referring to all media Ardwen. C'mon now...don't channel time4fun stupidity.

The quote was "With all of the Fake News coming out of NBC and the Networks..." Ardwen then said "He just doubled down on the media threat...".

I don't think it's unreasonable to refer to his threat as against the media, without thinking that Ardwen meant all media. I don't get in to these political discussions, but if you're going to critique, you better come correct and get better at your trolling if that's what you're trying to do.

[Androidpk]

The quote was "With all of the Fake News coming out of NBC and the Networks..." Ardwen then said "He just doubled down on the media threat...".

I don't think it's unreasonable to refer to his threat as against the media, without thinking that Ardwen meant all media. I don't get in to these political discussions, but if you're going to critique, you better come correct and get better at your trolling if that's what you're trying to do.

He's just trolling and doing it rather poorly.

As for Trump, he's against any network that's critical of him, which is probably over 90% of them at this point. He still likes Infowars though!

[Fortybox]

The quote was "With all of the Fake News coming out of NBC and the Networks..." Ardwen then said "He just doubled down on the media threat...".

I don't think it's unreasonable to refer to his threat as against the media, without thinking that Ardwen meant all media. I don't get in to these political discussions, but if you're going to critique, you better come correct and get better at your trolling if that's what you're trying to do.

Keep reading and you'll get to the point where Ardwen brings up Sean Hannity (I know, it's hard but do try). His point was that Trump gives a "threat" about the media but then is going to be on Sean Hannity. My point is that Trump is not referring to all media outlets and it isn't a contradiction in his statement by going on Sean Hannity.

I miss time4stupid. You all just aren't cutting it. Please make PC great again.

[Fortybox]

He's just trolling and doing it rather poorly.

As for Trump, he's against any network that's critical of him, which is probably over 90% of them at this point. He still likes Infowars though!

There's a difference between being critical and flat out lying just because the candidate you supported lost. This week is bringing out just how horrible the left-wing media is with the deliberate cover up of Weinstein's actions.

[Androidpk]

Hannity kisses Trump's ass, your point is irrelevant.

[~Rocktar~]

Hannity kisses Trump's ass, your point is irrelevant.

I don't like the source so I will discount any point made.

[Methais]

I don't like the source so I will discount any point made.

His transformation is almost complete. Soon he'll be calling people sweetie and honey and have a degree in everything.

[Androidpk]

I don't like the source so I will discount any point made.

Uhh, have I ever said I don't like Hannity? Try again. And what happened to your precious slippery slope? Or does it only matter when Democrats are attacking the bill of rights and Repubs get a free pass? Don't be a Tgo.

[Parkbandit]

There's a difference between being critical and flat out lying just because the candidate you supported lost. This week is bringing out just how horrible the left-wing media is with the deliberate cover up of Weinstein's actions.

My favorite is some of the Hollywood elites claiming they didn't know anything about Harvey being a scumbag sexual harasser.

[Androidpk]

A new Quinnipiac poll puts Pres. Trump's job approval rating at 38% and found a clear majority - 55% of those polled - say Donald Trump is unfit to serve as president.

[Fortybox]

Um, honey, have I ever said I don't like Hannity? Oh dear, try again. And what happened to your precious slippery slope? Or does it only matter when Democrats are attacking the bill of rights and Repubs get a free pass? I have 3 degrees in constitutional law. Don't be a Tgo...honey.

Fixed.

[Fortybox]

A new Quinnipiac poll puts Pres. Trump's job approval rating at 38% and found a clear majority - 55% of those polled - say Donald Trump is unfit to serve as president. I have 55 degrees in polling.

Polls said Hillary was going to win too.

https://cbsnews3.cbsistatic.com/hub/i/r/2016/09/12/155139ab-7117-4e69-8887-525b3336caff/thumbnail/1200x630/66d7f85d94d718d537dedc4ba2e92075/0912-cbsn-eyv-battlegroundpolls-1122010-640x360.jpg

Oh and Alteryx, a predictive software tool, even "predicted" the results!

https://carto.com/blog/img/posts/2016/2016-10-11-carto-alteryx-election-app/election-alteryx-app.8639d0f2.jpg

[Fortybox]

My favorite is some of the Hollywood elites claiming they didn't know anything about Harvey being a scumbag sexual harasser.

They knew it and covered for him because he was liberal and was advancing the agenda. Total hypocrites.

[Parkbandit]

Fixed.

Seriously.

"He" needs to change his avatar..

http://forum.gsplayers.com/image.php?u=10769&dateline=1482246379

[Fortybox]

Seriously.

"He" needs to change his avatar..

http://forum.gsplayers.com/image.php?u=10769&dateline=1482246379

Just seeing that avatar sends chills down my spine.

[Shaps]

A new Quinnipiac poll puts Pres. Trump's job approval rating at 38% and found a clear majority - 55% of those polled - say Donald Trump is unfit to serve as president.

According to a study conducted in late April by the U.S. Department of Education and the National Institute of Literacy, 32 million adults in the U.S. can’t read. That’s 14 percent of the population. 21 percent of adults in the U.S. read below a 5th grade level, and 19 percent of high school graduates can’t read.

The current literacy rate isn’t any better than it was 10 years ago. According to the National Assessment of Adult Literacy (completed most recently in 2003, and before that, in 1992), 14 percent of adult Americans demonstrated a “below basic” literacy level in 2003, and 29 percent exhibited a “basic” reading level.

I've given up on what the "polls" say or rely on trusting the outcomes... simply because our Nation is filled with a bunch of idiots.

[Methais]

Seriously.

"He" needs to change his avatar..

http://forum.gsplayers.com/image.php?u=10769&dateline=1482246379

Maybe time4fun and time4pk worked out a deal where in exchange for him being her on here while she's safe spacing it up, she'll provide him with some *SCHLUP SCHLUP*, possibly just the audio.

[Parkbandit]

Maybe time4fun and time4pk worked out a deal where in exchange for him being her on here while she's safe spacing it up, she'll provide him with some *SCHLUP SCHLUP*, possibly just the audio.

You know he doesn't like it loud!

[Fortybox]

Maybe time4fun and time4pk worked out a deal where in exchange for him being her on here while she's safe spacing it up, she'll provide him with some *SCHLUP SCHLUP*, possibly just the audio.

LOL @ time4pk

[Androidpk]

Lane: So it’s a massive tax cut, but then that runs against your pledge to not increase the deficit because you can’t, you know.

Trump: No, because, no, because a tax cut will spur growth.

Lane: Yes, that is true, and there is dynamic scoring.

Trump: The growth, the growth will be so much that it’ll be —

Lane: Yes, but history has shown that you can’t just cut. It does spur growth, but it won’t pay for itself. History has shown that.

Trump: Well, history has also shown the opposite. I mean, you’ve had it both ways. It has shown both ways.

Lane: Which time have you been able to cut and out of growth cut —

Trump: Well, during Reagan, during Reagan, during his cuts, he — tremendous growth.

Lane: It spurred growth, but it also ballooned the deficit.

[Latrinsorm]

Republicans are focused on tax reform. Everybody loves cutting taxes. It's an easy win, they just need to iron out the details.

Then:
President Trump punts DACA to Congress.
President Trump punts Iran to Congress.
President Trump punts Obamacare to Congress.

And:
President Trump declares that he's going to look at welfare reform.

Lots of luck!

[Wrathbringer]

Republicans are focused on tax reform. Everybody loves cutting taxes. It's an easy win, they just need to iron out the details.

Then:
President Trump punts DACA to Congress.
President Trump punts Iran to Congress.
President Trump punts Obamacare to Congress.

And:
President Trump declares that he's going to look at welfare reform.

Lots of luck!

waaaaah waaaaah I lost waaaaah Time to get over it. #maga #americafirst

[Androidpk]

Then:
President Trump punts DACA to Congress.
President Trump punts Iran to Congress.
President Trump punts Obamacare to Congress.

And:
President Trump declares that he's going to look at welfare reform.

Lots of luck!


Don't forget pissing of Republicans like Corker.

[Androidpk]

When the conversation turned to gay rights, Trump motioned toward Pence and joked, “Don’t ask that guy—he wants to hang them all!”

[Tgo01]

When the conversation turned to gay rights, Trump motioned toward Pence and joked, “Don’t ask that guy—he wants to hang them all!”

Oh good, we're back to anonymous sources. This one is even better because I haven't even seen a time frame for when this supposedly happened. It almost sounds like it happened during the campaign over a year ago but we're just now hearing about it today. Almost as if you shouldn't believe everything you hear, unless it's something bad about Trump of course!

[Androidpk]

You stick up for Trump like Time4fun sticks up for Hillary. 2 retarded peas in a pod.

[Tgo01]

You stick up for Trump like Time4fun sticks up for Hillary. 2 retarded peas in a pod.

An anonymous source says you eat your own poo. I guess I have no choice but to believe it.

[Androidpk]

An anonymous source says you eat your own poo. I guess I have no choice but to believe it.


When it becomes painfully obvious he doesn't know what he's talking about he just starts making up shit on the spot too in an effort to sound smart.

.

[Tgo01]

.

Oh so you equate anonymous sources to making stuff up? I guess my work here is done.

Should just rename this thread to "A Thread for Androidpk's Self-Inflicted Wound of the day"

[Androidpk]

Are these the same anonymous sources you used when you said Warriorbird was a pedo?

[Tgo01]

Are these the same anonymous sources you used when you said Warriorbird was a pedo?

Don't be silly, WB admitted to being a pedo. This thread is now about Androidpk's multiple self-inflicted wounds of the day.

[Androidpk]

Don't be silly, WB admitted to being a pedo. This thread is now about Androidpk's multiple self-inflicted wounds of the day.

Just going to keep making shit up. Sad.

[Tgo01]

Just going to keep making shit up. Sad.

Yes, we have already established that you believe relying on anonymous sources = making shit up. Sad indeed. Nice deflection attempt though.

[Androidpk]

Keep digging that hole of yours.

https://media.tenor.co/images/17f1b6175532ecba27f3fcfe8fdb5bd8/tenor.gif

[Tgo01]

Keep digging that hole of yours.

https://media.tenor.co/images/17f1b6175532ecba27f3fcfe8fdb5bd8/tenor.gif

Speaking of digging holes, remember that one time you relied on anonymous sources to bash Trump, then made fun of me for citing anonymous sources and said I was making stuff up?

Good times. Good times indeed.

[~Rocktar~]

Yes, we have already established that you believe relying on anonymous sources = making shit up. Sad indeed. Nice deflection attempt though.

Unless you are a Liberal and then they are of course 110% accurate and reliable.

Just for the record, anonymous sources should be considered as credible as Harvey Weinstein's regret over sexual assault.

[Tgo01]

Unless you are a Liberal and then they are of course 110% accurate and reliable.

Just for the record, anonymous sources should be considered as credible as Harvey Weinstein's regret over sexual assault.

The thing about anonymous sources is you are supposed to use them sparingly and you need credibility for people to take you on your word that you received this information from credible sources. The problem is the media is relying on anonymous sources for just about every damn thing when it comes to Trump. Not only that but the media has lost all credibility in regards to reporting fairly and accurately on Trump so their anonymous sources mean jack shit.

10 years ago anonymous sourced news stories might have had some credibility to them, but with the media's desire to smear Trump at every possible turn they might have just damaged the reputation of anonymous sources forever, or at least for the near future. Well, except to people who so desperately want to believe the anonymous source is real of course.

[Androidpk]

The thing about anonymous sources is you are supposed to use them sparingly and you need credibility for people to take you on your word that you received this information from credible sources. The problem is the media is relying on anonymous sources for just about every damn thing when it comes to Trump. Not only that but the media has lost all credibility in regards to reporting fairly and accurately on Trump so their anonymous sources mean jack shit.

10 years ago anonymous sourced news stories might have had some credibility to them, but with the media's desire to smear Trump at every possible turn they might have just damaged the reputation of anonymous sources forever, or at least for the near future. Well, except to people who so desperately want to believe the anonymous source is real of course.


And the cheerleading continues.

[Tgo01]

And the cheerleading continues.

You have already compared anonymous sources to making stuff up. Why are you still here?

[Androidpk]

Don't forget pissing of Republicans like Corker.

Corker also added a fresh complication to the intensifying White House push to overhaul the tax code, saying that he would oppose any tax-cut bill that would raise the deficit.

[Androidpk]

You have already compared anonymous sources to making stuff up. Why are you still here?

Yet you don't have a problem when Trump makes up shit. Why are you still here?

[Androidpk]

https://i.redd.it/ub7hm75et6sz.jpg

[Tgo01]

Yet you don't have a problem when Trump makes up shit. Why are you still here?

Funny how a lot of the shit Trump "makes up" ends up becoming true. I wouldn't be surprised if one day we find Obama's Kenya birth certificate.

[Tgo01]

https://i.redd.it/ub7hm75et6sz.jpg

When you have to take shit out of context to portray someone as racist. No wonder you rushed to WB's side, you two seem to be on the same page in this regard.

[Androidpk]

You gonna cry like a bitch every time I post something about Trump? Probably.

[Tgo01]

You gonna cry like a bitch every time I post something about Trump? Probably.

If you post something useful and insightful and indeed a Trump "self inflicted wound" then probably not. If you're gonna just post shit you get from Shareblue or Slate or Vox then yeah, I'm gonna call you out for being retarded.

[Androidpk]

Okay, Ashliana.

[Latrinsorm]

The thing about anonymous sources is you are supposed to use them sparingly and you need credibility for people to take you on your word that you received this information from credible sources. The problem is the media is relying on anonymous sources for just about every damn thing when it comes to Trump. Not only that but the media has lost all credibility in regards to reporting fairly and accurately on Trump so their anonymous sources mean jack shit.

10 years ago anonymous sourced news stories might have had some credibility to them, but with the media's desire to smear Trump at every possible turn they might have just damaged the reputation of anonymous sources forever, or at least for the near future. Well, except to people who so desperately want to believe the anonymous source is real of course.Like when anonymous sources said Priebus was history. Oops, that was right.
Okay, like when anonymous sources said Bannon was out. Oops, that was right too.
Okay, like when anonymous sources said Flynn was a goner. Oops, that was right also.

Alright, now you can give us three times when anonymous sources said an employee was going to be let go and they stayed on for... let's say two months after the report.

https://i.imgur.com/KkunJ9V.gif

[Tgo01]

Like when anonymous sources said Priebus was history. Oops, that was right.
Okay, like when anonymous sources said Bannon was out. Oops, that was right too.
Okay, like when anonymous sources said Flynn was a goner. Oops, that was right also.

Alright, now you can give us three times when anonymous sources said an employee was going to be let go and they stayed on for... let's say two months after the report.

https://i.imgur.com/KkunJ9V.gif

Shit both Priebus and Bannon lasted more than 2 months after the rumors of them being fired started circulating, so going by your own made up rules you're wrong on both accounts.

I could list the dozens of bullshit stories that came from anonymous sources that ended up being false but I honestly don't have enough time on my hands.

[Tenlaar]

The problem is the media is relying on anonymous sources for just about every damn thing when it comes to Trump.

Which of course is completely because of the fake news media making up stories, and has nothing to do with the fact that Trump is a petty man who both publicly and privately lashes out against people who he believes have wronged him, right?

[Tgo01]

Which of course is completely because of the fake news media making up stories, and has nothing to do with the fact that Trump is a petty man who both publicly and privately lashes out against people who he believes have wronged him, right?

I don't necessarily think the media is making the stories up (although it wouldn't surprise me if some of them are completely made up), I think a lot of their "sources" are making shit up. This is unprecedented times we live in. I don't recall any prominent Republicans literally calling for people to bash skulls in of people they disagree with when Obama was elected, yet that's happening now with Democrats because Democrats took Bush Derangement Syndrome and turned it up to 11 with Trump Derangement Syndrome.

How about that moron with a security clearance who leaked government secrets because she hates Trump so much? Wasn't her name like Reality Winner or something?

[Androidpk]

Thank god Trump has Tgo to Correct the Record.

[Tgo01]

Thank god Trump has Tgo to Correct the Record.

It's my pleasure to correct retards.

[Androidpk]

A federal judge on Tuesday largely blocked the Trump administration from implementing the latest version of the president’s controversial travel ban, setting up yet another legal showdown on the extent of the executive branch’s powers when it comes to setting immigration policy.

---

Is Trump going to accomplish anything this year?

[Ardwen]

he will in a period of time contact us about that

[Parkbandit]

Is Trump going to accomplish anything this year?

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/97/Associate_Justice_Neil_Gorsuch_Official_Portrait.j pg

The main reason I voted for him.

Well that and the salty entertainment his election win would garner me.

Thank you.

[Androidpk]

https://i.imgur.com/eNp0leG.jpg

[Gelston]

It was a dumb thing to say to the family of the deceased. It is something that is understood. The family understood it. He didn't need to say it.

[Parkbandit]

It was a dumb thing to say to the family of the deceased. It is something that is understood. The family understood it. He didn't need to say it.

I agree... if he said it.

[Tgo01]

I agree... if he said it.

Supposedly both the mother and Trump have proof he either did or did not say it. I can't wait to see if either of them provides said proof.

[Androidpk]

Given Trump's history of lying about everything... yeah, gonna side with Rep Wilson and the family on this one.

[Androidpk]

https://i.imgur.com/6VrCA3e.png

[Tgo01]

Given Trump's history of lying about everything... yeah, gonna side with Rep Wilson and the family on this one.

https://ih1.redbubble.net/image.43350102.5844/flat,800x800,070,f.u4.jpg

[Tgo01]

Supposedly both the mother and Trump have proof he either did or did not say it. I can't wait to see if either of them provides said proof.

When I first read this story it said the fallen soldier's mother overheard what Trump said and Democrat Rep Wilson just repeated what the mother told her. Reading this further it appears Democrat Rep Wilson was literally in the car as the widow and her were driving to meet the body when Trump called and the widow had him on speaker phone and WILSON is the one claiming Trump said this.

At this point it's not even the widow who is saying Trump said this, it is literally a Democrat House member who just so happened to be in the car when Trump called and overheard what he supposedly said. Oh and this particular House member has called for Trump's impeachment in the past.

I'm sure all of this is just a huge coincidence though.

[Androidpk]

Her comments come after Rep. Frederica Wilson (http://thehill.com/people/frederica-wilson) (D-Fla.) said Tuesday she overheard Trump tell Johnson's widow that the fallen soldier "knew what he signed up for ... but when it happens it hurts anyway."

Wilson told CNN that she was in a car with Johnson’s widow, Myeshia, during a trip to meet her husband's casket when Trump called. Wilson said Myeshia was "very distraught after the call."The Post asked Jones-Johnson, who was also in the car, if Wilson's description of the conversation was accurate.

"Yes," she said.

[Androidpk]

Man, tgo's back must be hurting from carrying all this water for trump

[Tgo01]

Her comments come after Rep. Frederica Wilson (http://thehill.com/people/frederica-wilson) (D-Fla.) said Tuesday she overheard Trump tell Johnson's widow that the fallen soldier "knew what he signed up for ... but when it happens it hurts anyway."

Wilson told CNN that she was in a car with Johnson’s widow, Myeshia, during a trip to meet her husband's casket when Trump called. Wilson said Myeshia was "very distraught after the call."The Post asked Jones-Johnson, who was also in the car, if Wilson's description of the conversation was accurate.

"Yes," she said.

Oh so it's the mother and the House member who were in the car who all overheard the conversation meant for the widow? Let me know when the widow speaks up on this.

Something tells me at this point the widow isn't going to say much though. Her husband's death has already been politicized to shit and back by a House rep who has been hell bent on impeaching Trump from day 1. There is already a very successful Gofundme page dedicated to the widow's children's college fund, probably in some part because a lot of people see it as a "fuck you" gesture to Trump to donate to this cause.

We ain't gonna hear from the widow, and I don't blame her. Shame people such as Androidpk want to turn this into a witch hunt based on the words of a woman who has been on a witch hunt since November 8th. But pieces of shit like Androidpk have ceased to surprise me.

[Androidpk]

Shame that tgo wants to stick up for this loser of a president just because he has an R next to his name. Who the fuck tries to politicize the deaths of US Soldiers? Trump, that's who, because of his shallow ego and constant need to contrast himself with Obama.

[Tgo01]

Who the fuck tries to politicize the deaths of US Soldiers?

Rep. Frederica Wilson. We just went over this. Are you currently experiencing a stroke?

[Androidpk]

Everyone is out to get Trump. It's all just a vast left wing conspiracy.

[drauz]

Its the Bilderberg Group!

[Androidpk]

Call Alex Jones!

[drauz]

Hes the one that told me about it! Its that damn fluoride in the water turning the frogs gay!

[Tgo01]

Everyone is out to get Trump. It's all just a vast left wing conspiracy.

When it is literally the same people over and over again it's hardly a "conspiracy" and more like just being able to use one's common sense. But since you apparently lack both common sense and a moral compass I'm not at all surprised you don't understand this.

[Androidpk]

I lack a moral compass? I'm not the one beating off to Donald Trump. You may wanna take a look in the mirror.

[Tgo01]

I lack a moral compass? I'm not the one beating off to Donald Trump. You may wanna take a look in the mirror.

https://i.imgflip.com/1n6srv.jpg

[Androidpk]

https://i.imgur.com/DChzfYg.jpg

[Tgo01]

https://i.imgur.com/DChzfYg.jpg

Meh, slightly better than your typical shit. I give it a 4/10.

[Tenlaar]

When it is literally the same people over and over again it's hardly a "conspiracy" and more like just being able to use one's common sense. But since you apparently lack both common sense and a moral compass I'm not at all surprised you don't understand this.

Shall we revisit the discussion where you ended up admitting that you're okay with people doing something you admit is wrong as long as other people are doing wrong things as well? You probably shouldn't try to talk about a moral compass.

[Tgo01]

Shall we revisit the discussion where you ended up admitting that you're okay with people doing something you admit is wrong as long as other people are doing wrong things as well? You probably shouldn't try to talk about a moral compass.

You mean where you claimed I said something I did not because you can't argue your point like a grown up? Sure, let's rehash that shit out. Be sure to whine about civility after I tell you to shove your revisionist history of what I said up your ass again.

[drauz]

https://i.imgur.com/82XnHIw.gif

fixed

and even better

http://coub.com/view/v73jb

[Methais]

Shame that tgo wants to stick up for this loser of a president just because he has an R next to his name. Who the fuck tries to politicize the deaths of US Soldiers? Trump, that's who, because of his shallow ego and constant need to contrast himself with Obama.

Even if Trump did say what's being claimed, which I doubt, what did he actually do to initiate the whole politicizing of this?

[Androidpk]

“The traditional way, if you look at President Obama and other Presidents, most of them didn’t make calls,” Trump said during a White House Rose Garden press conference with Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell.

“A lot of them didn’t make calls. I like to call when it’s appropriate, when I think I’m able to do it.”
Minutes later, after a reporter challenged Trump’s comments, the President said he wasn’t sure if his allegation about Obama was true.

[Tgo01]

“The traditional way, if you look at President Obama and other Presidents, most of them didn’t make calls,” Trump said during a White House Rose Garden press conference with Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell.

“A lot of them didn’t make calls. I like to call when it’s appropriate, when I think I’m able to do it.”
Minutes later, after a reporter challenged Trump’s comments, the President said he wasn’t sure if his allegation about Obama was true.

That was in response to a reporter asking Trump why he hadn't said anything about the 4 soldiers killed in Niger, he didn't just start talking about it out of the blue.

But don't let facts slow you down. Please, continue.

[drauz]

Niger.

Please stop using that word.

[Androidpk]

That was in response to a reporter asking Trump why he hadn't said anything about the 4 soldiers killed in Niger, he didn't just start talking about it out of the blue.

But don't let facts slow you down. Please, continue.

Did someone force him to bring up Obama and other previous presidents?

[Tgo01]

Please stop using that word.

:(


Did someone force him to bring up Obama and other previous presidents?

No. You said Trump was politicizing this, when in fact the reporter was the one that started the politicization by trying to catch Trump in a "Gotcha!" moment by portraying him as uncaring. Then along comes miss "We must impeach Trump!" to suddenly recall "Oh yeah! About two weeks ago I overheard Trump telling a grieving widow that her husband knew what he was getting himself into."

But yes. Let's ignore inconvenient facts in an attempt to pretend this is a story of Trump politicizing the deaths of these soldiers.

[Androidpk]

A vast left wing conspiracy to catch Trump in a gatcha moment. Uh huh.

These Trump groupies are something else..

[Tgo01]

A vast left wing conspiracy to catch Trump in a gatcha moment. Uh huh.

These Trump groupies are something else..

"Trump is trying to politicize this!"

"But the reporter started it."

"Ohh! It's just a vast conspiracy with you isn't it?!"

Go back to this:

http://s2.quickmeme.com/img/7b/7bc4717bb3b4fb5f48da7e73734b107bc5f64aacd2e0960913 93db5ec61a9313.jpg

Thinking clearly isn't your strong suit.

[Androidpk]

Asking the question wasn't politicizing it. Trump trying to simultaneously brag and lie about is.

[Tgo01]

Asking the question wasn't politicizing it. Trump trying to simultaneously brag and lie about is.

Asking the president of the United States why he hasn't commented on the deaths of US soldiers isn't trying to politicize it? But Trump claiming that past presidents don't comment on all deaths of US soldiers means he's politicizing it? But the woman who has been calling for Trump's impeachment for a year now saying Trump insulted a soldier's widow also isn't politicizing it? Do I understand you correctly?

[Androidpk]

Instead of admitting Trump said something incredibly stupid and insensitive you're just gonna blame this on the lefties because they're out to get him?

[Tgo01]

Instead of admitting Trump said something incredibly stupid and insensitive you're just gonna blame this on the lefties because they're out to get him?

It was a pretty stupid thing for Trump to say, if he did indeed say it. He probably didn't mean for it to be insensitive but I can see how it can come across that way.

The fact that we first heard of it by a Democrat House rep, who has been saying for close to a year now that Trump should be impeached, leaves me a bit suspect. Especially since this came out, what, 24 hours after Trump "attacked" Obama?

[Gelston]

It was a pretty stupid thing for Trump to say, if he did indeed say it. He probably didn't mean for it to be insensitive but I can see how it can come across that way.

The fact that we first heard of it by a Democrat House rep, who has been saying for close to a year now that Trump should be impeached, leaves me a bit suspect. Especially since this came out, what, 24 hours after Trump "attacked" Obama?

It is a stupid thing for Trump to say. And he has said a lot of stupid things before. This is why I don't doubt he said it. Trump has no filter between his thoughts and his mouth.

[Tgo01]

It is a stupid thing for Trump to say. And he has said a lot of stupid things before. This is why I don't doubt he said it. Trump has no filter between his thoughts and his mouth.

You can't talk about my president like that!

[Methais]

Instead of admitting Trump said something incredibly stupid and insensitive you're just gonna blame this on the lefties because they're out to get him?

That's great and all, but nobody is disputing that it was a stupid thing to say if he did actually say it.

The media and that rep are the ones politicizing it though. I'm not sure how that isn't painfully obvious to anyone.


A vast left wing conspiracy to catch Trump in a gatcha moment. Uh huh.

These Trump groupies are something else..

That's pretty much all the media has been trying to do since the election.

"No it's not!"

Oh, ok then.

[Parkbandit]

"knew what he signed up for ... but when it happens it hurts anyway."


Wait, that's what Trump reportedly said?

I don't have a problem with it, in that context. The way I heard it on the news was "He knew what he signed up for." and that was it.

[Methais]

You can't talk about my president like that!

REPORT HIM!!! DO IIIIITTTTTTT!!!!!!11

[Gelston]

Wait, that's what Trump reportedly said?

I don't have a problem with it, in that context. The way I heard it on the news was "He knew what he signed up for." and that was it.

Even with that additional part, it is still not something you say to the grieving family. The widow is allowed to say it. I don't think he was being intentionally hurtful though. I think half of the things he says are just him speaking outloud to himself.

[Parkbandit]

Even with that additional part, it is still not something you say to the grieving family. The widow is allowed to say it. I don't think he was being intentionally hurtful though. I think half of the things he says are just him speaking outloud to himself.

Keep the context out and it sounds horrible to say to a widow.

Add the context and it sounds like something someone would say when comforting a widow.

[Gelston]

Keep the context out and it sounds horrible to say to a widow.

Add the context and it sounds like something someone would say when comforting a widow.

Eh, I don't think it is something that should be said either way. The widow felt that it wasn't either.

[drauz]

Something just seems off about the congresswoman's story, call was on speaker but she didn't hear anything of the conversation except that one part.

[Gelston]

Something just seems off about the congresswoman's story, call was on speaker but she didn't hear anything of the conversation except that one part.

The congresswoman is trying to play politics hardcore. She is definitely exploiting the family.

[ClydeR]

Would you trust a woman from Florida who has a large collection of hats and wears them everywhere -- just do a Google image search -- except on the House floor because they won't change the rules to allow hats even though she keeps trying to change the rules to allow hats, which would presumably also allow Make America Great Again hats purchased from the Trump store and worn by patriotic Republican congressmen trying to cut taxes and repeal Obamacare?

[Methais]

Would you trust a woman from Florida who has a large collection of hats and wears them everywhere -- just do a Google image search -- except on the House floor because they won't change the rules to allow hats even though she keeps trying to change the rules to allow hats, which would presumably also allow Make America Great Again hats purchased from the Trump store and worn by patriotic Republican congressmen trying to cut taxes and repeal Obamacare?

Nobody should trust anyone from Florida for any reason under any circumstances.

[Gelston]

Nobody should trust anyone from Florida for any reason under any circumstances.

I was so happy when LSU defeated UF. Fuck the gators.

[Methais]

I was so happy when LSU defeated UF. Fuck the gators.

A friend of mine that lived here all his live until like a month ago is suddenly the biggest gator fan ever within like a day of moving to Florida just barely even over the border on the panhandle. I don't even care about college sports and it's still nauseating. I thought he was trolling at first but it appears he's as serious as Shirley.

[Parkbandit]

Nobody should trust anyone from Florida for any reason under any circumstances.

Born in or currently resides in?

You better measure your next reply very carefully mister...

[Methais]

Born in or currently resides in?

You better measure your next reply very carefully mister...

But good sir, you live in [Town Square, Small Park].

[Methais]

Oh yeah I almost forgot, about 10.5 inches.

https://i.imgur.com/CeG5OVe.jpg

[Tgo01]

So John Kelly is laying the smack down. (http://www.cnn.com/2017/10/19/politics/john-kelly-donald-trump-niger-family-calls/index.html)


"He was doing exactly what he wanted to do when he was killed. He knew what he was getting into by joining that 1%. He knew what the possibilities were because we were at war," Kelly said, channeling Dunford's words to him upon the death of Kelly's son. "And when he died he was surrounded by the best men on this earth, his friends. That's what the President tried to say to the four families the other day."

I think Kelly raises a good point here. Even if Trump did say something like "he knew what he was getting into", he was probably trying to say the man knew the risks yet volunteered for his country anyways because that's the kind of brave man he was. The Florida Congresswoman made it sound like Trump called up and said "Yeah, your husband knew what he was getting into." CLICK. But that's because she's politicizing the hell out of this and back.

Also John Kelly confirmed Trump's statement that presidents typically don't call the families of fallen soldiers, they usually just send letters.