politics thread

[skinsdad62]

I have been critical of Hillary and Obama when warranted. Have you ever been critical of Trump? Ever? Please show your work.

He is absolutely the biggest jerk around . He is a womanizer and a shithead. Now show your work

 

[Stymietee]

You have no idea where any of those checks came from

Where they came from has no bearing on what's at hand. Can we agree that they do exist? Can we agree that they either came from a Trump owned revocable trust or his private account? Do we have authorized signatures on some and his own signature on the other(s)? That's all evidence, no investigator or prosecutor needs to know where they came from, only that they were recognized as valid and were cashed. Now I suspect that you're going to claim check fraud, forgery, and the creation of that revocable trust by persons unknown. Seriously, how far do you want to take this nonsense?

 

[Darrell Green Fan]

Morning. Why now? Why have you chosen to pick this time and this candidate to hold to all of his campaign promises? A lie is a lie and there hasn't been one candidate on the campaign trail that hasn't said he/she was going to do something once elected that never happened. Remember Obama and Gitmo? He was going to close it as his first course of action. Guess what...its still open. That's just one example.

Why you continue to defend him is kind of weird to me. You accuse me of having an agenda, you appear to have one with me. You don't even like the guy but you feel he is being attacked unfairly so you dig in against the attackers.

Trump said he would drain the swamp and then brought in crooks. He used the evils of Goldman Sachs in his campaigns against both Cruz and Hillary, then proceeded to hire top Goldman Sachs executives into his organization.

This isn't about Obama, or Hillary or Teddy Roosevelt. It's about our President standing on a podium and making promises to cheering crowds while knowing full well he was going to do the exact opposite if elected. And he should be called out for that, again I have no idea why that is even debatable.

 

[j_y19]

Why you continue to defend him is kind of weird to me. You accuse me of having an agenda, you appear to have one with me. You don't even like the guy but you feel he is being attacked unfairly so you dig in against the attackers.

Trump said he would drain the swamp and then brought in crooks. He used the evils of Goldman Sachs in his campaigns against both Cruz and Hillary, then proceeded to hire top Goldman Sachs executives into his organization.

This isn't about Obama, or Hillary or Teddy Roosevelt. It's about our President standing on a podium and making promises to cheering crowds while knowing full well he was going to do the exact opposite if elected. And he should be called out for that, again I have no idea why that is even debatable.

I'm not debating you, I'm agreeing with you. He lied. But why are you so dead set in holding this one to a standard that is above what you hold the others to? I'm just trying to understand.

 

[skinsdad62]

Where they came from has no bearing on what's at hand. Can we agree that they do exist? Can we agree that they either came from a Trump owned revocable trust or his private account? Do we have authorized signatures on some and his own signature on the other(s)? That's all evidence, no investigator or prosecutor needs to know where they came from, only that they were recognized as valid and were cashed. Now I suspect that you're going to claim check fraud, forgery, and the creation of that revocable trust by persons unknown. Seriously, how far do you want to take this nonsense?

Perhaps you should study the case of one John Edwards . If that check came from a campaign,sty ,you have a case but since it came from a private account no laws were broken . And we have quite a list of former presidents who paid hush money to people

 

[Stymietee]

Again racist all the same . Coming from a woman that supports Hamas

I suspect that you are referring to Hamas as a terrorist organization and that's partially fair. What makes it unfair is the assumption that terrorism is a one way street with respect to all involved, including this country. I hope that you are aware of the fact that the label "terrorist" isn't solely for the United States to place upon others, others rightfully place that tag on us too!

 

[Darrell Green Fan]

He is absolutely the biggest jerk around . He is a womanizer and a shithead. Now show your work

I didn't use shithead for Obama because it simply didn't apply. But I've been plenty critical of both in the past.


And I have acknowledged repeatedly that Hillary is a crooked witch and the worst candidate I have ever voted for.

https://sportshoop.la/threads/in-sh...as-their-parents.274685/page-29#post-12778246

Not a fan of Hillary, made that perfectly clear over the years.

https://sportshoop.la/threads/trump-vs-oprah.252225/page-2#post-12591940


I agree that Obama was divisive
https://sportshoop.la/threads/witho...rats-have-really.276349/page-10#post-12905068

Yeah and I also said Obama should have released his transcripts

https://sportshoop.la/threads/in-sh...as-their-parents.274685/page-29#post-12778246

 

[Stymietee]

Perhaps you should study the case of one John Edwards . If that check came from a campaign,sty ,you have a case but since it came from a private account no laws were broken . And we have quite a list of former presidents who paid hush money to people

They came directly or indirectly from either the candidate or the elected president, so you're right, I have a case. I'm sticking with this guy, and won't play "what about-ism" with you. That's a diversion, so, excuse me if I don't respond to all attempts to divert from 45, I won't play so don't waste your time.

 

[skinsdad62]

Why you continue to defend him is kind of weird to me. You accuse me of having an agenda, you appear to have one with me. You don't even like the guy but you feel he is being attacked unfairly so you dig in against the attackers.

Trump said he would drain the swamp and then brought in crooks. He used the evils of Goldman Sachs in his campaigns against both Cruz and Hillary, then proceeded to hire top Goldman Sachs executives into his organization.

This isn't about Obama, or Hillary or Teddy Roosevelt. It's about our President standing on a podium and making promises to cheering crowds while knowing full well he was going to do the exact opposite if elected. And he should be called out for that, again I have no idea why that is even debatable.

Like say Obama saying he would close gitmo ? Or fix the border ? Oh wait we can’t bring that up because only Trump actually gets held accountable for stuff right . Now based on previous behavior from a weaponized DOJ and FBI , I wouldn’t release a damn thing

 

[Darrell Green Fan]

I'm not debating you, I'm agreeing with you. He lied. But why are you so dead set in holding this one to a standard that is above what you hold the others to? I'm just trying to understand.

I'm simply trying to get you to understand this is not just one of the simple lies that we've grown accustomed to with this guy, it was a huge part of his campaign and a promise he had no intention of honoring. Can't you see the difference? Really?

 

[Stymietee]

https://www.bing.com/videos/search?...B277237C5DDE5C63474DB277237C5DDE&&FORM=VRDGAR
So true!


00:04
I love the poorly educated
762 views1 year ago
YouTubelemmin

 

[skinsdad62]

They came directly or indirectly from either the candidate or the elected president, so you're right, I have a case. I'm sticking with this guy, and won't play "what about-ism" with you. That's a diversion, so, excuse me if I don't respond to all attempts to divert from 45, I won't play so don't waste your time.

It’s no diversion Sty , if you knew the case you would know the folly of what you are saying . Instead you want to call it a deflection . Read the damn case ! If you want to call out s guy for behaviors , then fine. But hold the others accountable for the same thing ! I don’t care about Edwards doing anything but the case , the case sty explains your folly

 

[Darrell Green Fan]

They came directly or indirectly from either the candidate or the elected president, so you're right, I have a case. I'm sticking with this guy, and won't play "what about-ism" with you. That's a diversion, so, excuse me if I don't respond to all attempts to divert from 45, I won't play so don't waste your time.

This X 1,000.

The "what about..." game has gotten very very old.

 

[skinsdad62]

I'm simply trying to get you to understand this is not just one of the simple lies that we've grown accustomed to with this guy, it was a huge part of his campaign and a promise he had no intention of honoring. Can't you see the difference? Really?

Like say gitmo

 

[skinsdad62]

This X 1,000.

The "what about..." game has gotten very very old.

Again read the case ,and stop anticipating what I mean

 

[Rowdy]

I suspect that you are referring to Hamas as a terrorist organization and that's partially fair. What makes it unfair is the assumption that terrorism is a one way street with respect to all involved, including this country. I hope that you are aware of the fact that the label "terrorist" isn't solely for the United States to place upon others, others rightfully place that tag on us too!

So there’s the difference between trump and his supporters verses the left. America first! She’s in the U.S brother

 

[Darrell Green Fan]

Like say gitmo

If he made a promise and purposely failed to deliver he deserves criticism. I have no idea of the specifics of why he didn't close Gitmo and neither do you. But if it was promised it was wrong.

But again you are discussing policy. I am discussing something much more important: integrity. Promising to drain the swamp of corruption and then bringing in crooks and liars is kind of a big deal for those in favor of Right vs Wrong. With the Trump clan you literally appear as if you do not care about that. I know that's not true but that's how you come across with your continued defense of a liar and cheat.

 

[Stymietee]

It’s no diversion Sty , if you knew the case you would know the folly of what you are saying . Instead you want to call it a deflection . Read the damn case ! If you want to call out s guy for behaviors , then fine. But hold the others accountable for the same thing ! I don’t care about Edwards doing anything but the case , the case sty explains your folly

Stop this! I presented the case based on my own experience as a candidate. You are saying now that I don't know of what I speak. Fine, tell yourself anything that helps. Dual purpose contributions are a real thing and they all have to be reported, that is a fact!

I'm not talking about Edwards, or anyone else, just this guy and what should be obvious to any sensible/ reasonable person. Now, I'll try to be fair and ask you EXACTLY which part of what I presented isn't factual? This is where we are, any diversion and I'll take that as blowing smoke.

 

[j_y19]

I'm simply trying to get you to understand this is not just one of the simple lies that we've grown accustomed to with this guy, it was a huge part of his campaign and a promise he had no intention of honoring. Can't you see the difference? Really?

No, I don't. A lie is a lie. I won't even go into the lies that were told about Bengazi but those were the worst lies a President told in my memory all to save his skin from abdicating his responsibility to protect americans when he had the chance.

You want to know what I think is just as bad as lying? Hypocrisy. And i view taking a hard stance on one person yet letting others doing the same thing as hypocritical.

 

[j_y19]

If he made a promise and purposely failed to deliver he deserves criticism. I have no idea of the specifics of why he didn't close Gitmo and neither do you. But if it was promised it was wrong.

But again you are discussing policy. I am discussing something much more important: integrity. Promising to drain the swamp of corruption and then bringing in crooks and liars is kind of a big deal for those in favor of Right vs Wrong. With the Trump clan you literally appear as if you do not care about that. I know that's not true but that's how you come across with your continued defense of a liar and cheat.

He didn't close it because he either didn't know what the fuck he was talking about when making that pledge or he said it to garner a certain voting bloc. Kinda like saying "I'll drain the swamp" and then not doing it.