(10-04-2018, 03:43 PM)Adam2012 Wrote: [ -> ] (10-04-2018, 01:37 PM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ]It came from the NYTimes, that speaks for itself as far as credulity is concerned. As for Trump, we're doing fine with him, thanks. Meanwhile, your side is busy beating the bushes for bushes that were beaten, and gosh darn it, just aren't having any luck. Maybe they should look to their own party for those types, we know from experience that's where you find them.
lol ... all the sources were correct about the Clinton Foundation, right? Attack the source, don't refute the facts. Tactics of political hypocrites everywhere.
I know Donald lies, but why do you? "My side"? Because I'm not a Trumpette? I've made it clear that I'm a Republican, just not a fan of the Agent Orange con man.
Hey I don't blame you for being embarrassed, but you should seek the truth instead of digging your hole deeper and deeper.
You're as Republican as Chairman Mao.
(10-04-2018, 03:44 PM)rollerjag Wrote: [ -> ] (10-04-2018, 01:37 PM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ]It came from the NYTimes, that speaks for itself as far as credulity is concerned. As for Trump, we're doing fine with him, thanks. Meanwhile, your side is busy beating the bushes for bushes that were beaten, and gosh darn it, just aren't having any luck. Maybe they should look to their own party for those types, we know from experience that's where you find them.
You've fallen hard for the con. Don't read it, it's from the NY Times. I get it, it's a lot of words. All they did is disprove the whole "Daddy just gave me a small $1,000,000 loan and I built an empire" myth anyone who's watching with open eyes already knew was horse [BLEEP]. Not only did Daddy prop his loyal son up, bailing him out of one failure after another, but as Daddy neared the end of his life he feared his son was trying to change his will for one final big bailout. But keep that mind closed, bad news can eke through any opening. It must be denied, at all costs!
Everything in that article is supported by documentation, it very clearly shows decades of fraud, but keep telling yourself how good things are for you, that's all that matters, and how anything in the NY Times reports is bogus. Sooner or later something will require of Trump a moral compass, of which he has none.
I read it, and frankly, even if it is true (dubious at best), I don't care. I've always maintained that the tax code is corrupt and needs to change, anyone who is in office has used it to accumulate wealth. I don't care, especially when the alternative was Hillary freaking Clinton. And I didn't vote for him, I'm just enjoying the Democrat and True Republican (BIRM) melt down as the economy continues to soar. You guys are tilting against windmills while Trump seems to be riding high.
(09-17-2018, 02:50 PM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ] (09-17-2018, 02:30 PM)Cleatwood Wrote: [ -> ]How do you know this is a false accusation?
Because the only witness she named denied it happened? Because it was 36 years ago? Because the timing and handling of this event reeks of the Democrat playbook? Because we already saw it happen to Justice Thomas? Lots of reasons it seems.
(09-17-2018, 02:31 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]Bingo.
Lol, the Garland nomination was exactly the correct thing to do. The Congress would and should not have approved a Lame Duck nomination.
Lol, you don't even know what the term "lame duck" means. The lame duck period is between the election and the new president's inauguration. Merrick Garland was nominated months before the 2016 election, not unlike 17 other SCOTUS nominations made in election years. His was no more a lame duck nomination than Reagan's nomination of Justice Kennedy who, by the way, was confirmed unanimously by a Democratic congress. Trumpettes like to call (Electoral College) Scoreboard when defending Trump's actions yet will deny the will of the people who elected Obama to a second term, and while they support the U.S. Constitution when it comes to keeping their beloved firearms, they seem to be blind when Republicans were derelict in their Constitutional duty to provide advice and consent on any presidential nomination to the Supreme Court.
[quote pid='1153644' dateline='1538682639']
(10-04-2018, 03:44 PM)rollerjag Wrote: [ -> ]You've fallen hard for the con. Don't read it, it's from the NY Times. I get it, it's a lot of words. All they did is disprove the whole "Daddy just gave me a small $1,000,000 loan and I built an empire" myth anyone who's watching with open eyes already knew was horse [BLEEP]. Not only did Daddy prop his loyal son up, bailing him out of one failure after another, but as Daddy neared the end of his life he feared his son was trying to change his will for one final big bailout. But keep that mind closed, bad news can eke through any opening. It must be denied, at all costs!
Everything in that article is supported by documentation, it very clearly shows decades of fraud, but keep telling yourself how good things are for you, that's all that matters, and how anything in the NY Times reports is bogus. Sooner or later something will require of Trump a moral compass, of which he has none.
I read it, and frankly, even if it is true (dubious at best), I don't care. I've always maintained that the tax code is corrupt and needs to change, anyone who is in office has used it to accumulate wealth. I don't care, especially when the alternative was Hillary freaking Clinton. And I didn't vote for him, I'm just enjoying the Democrat and True Republican (BIRM) melt down as the economy continues to soar. You guys are tilting against windmills while Trump seems to be riding high.
[/quote]
So if someone takes advantage of a corrupt system for personal profit, good for them, and if they're riding high on a myth, even better. I'm beginning to understand the lack of worry over little things like amorality.
Cha-ching! is all that matters.
Wait wait.... Did u just try to cite Kennedy's confirmation as some beacon of bipartisanship? Wow....
(10-04-2018, 04:17 PM)rollerjag Wrote: [ -> ][quote pid='1153644' dateline='1538682639']
(10-04-2018, 03:44 PM)rollerjag Wrote: [ -> ]You've fallen hard for the con. Don't read it, it's from the NY Times. I get it, it's a lot of words. All they did is disprove the whole "Daddy just gave me a small $1,000,000 loan and I built an empire" myth anyone who's watching with open eyes already knew was horse [BLEEP]. Not only did Daddy prop his loyal son up, bailing him out of one failure after another, but as Daddy neared the end of his life he feared his son was trying to change his will for one final big bailout. But keep that mind closed, bad news can eke through any opening. It must be denied, at all costs!
Everything in that article is supported by documentation, it very clearly shows decades of fraud, but keep telling yourself how good things are for you, that's all that matters, and how anything in the NY Times reports is bogus. Sooner or later something will require of Trump a moral compass, of which he has none.
I read it, and frankly, even if it is true (dubious at best), I don't care. I've always maintained that the tax code is corrupt and needs to change, anyone who is in office has used it to accumulate wealth. I don't care, especially when the alternative was Hillary freaking Clinton. And I didn't vote for him, I'm just enjoying the Democrat and True Republican (BIRM) melt down as the economy continues to soar. You guys are tilting against windmills while Trump seems to be riding high.
So if someone takes advantage of a corrupt system for personal profit, good for them, and if they're riding high on a myth, even better. I'm beginning to understand the lack of worry over little things like amorality.
Cha-ching! is all that matters.
[/quote]
Morality? In politics??? Lol, you are so naive for an old guy.
(10-04-2018, 04:11 PM)rollerjag Wrote: [ -> ] (09-17-2018, 02:50 PM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ]Because the only witness she named denied it happened? Because it was 36 years ago? Because the timing and handling of this event reeks of the Democrat playbook? Because we already saw it happen to Justice Thomas? Lots of reasons it seems.
Lol, the Garland nomination was exactly the correct thing to do. The Congress would and should not have approved a Lame Duck nomination.
Lol, you don't even know what the term "lame duck" means. The lame duck period is between the election and the new president's inauguration. Merrick Garland was nominated months before the 2016 election, not unlike 17 other SCOTUS nominations made in election years. His was no more a lame duck nomination than Reagan's nomination of Justice Kennedy who, by the way, was confirmed unanimously by a Democratic congress. Trumpettes like to call (Electoral College) Scoreboard when defending Trump's actions yet will deny the will of the people who elected Obama to a second term, and while they support the U.S. Constitution when it comes to keeping their beloved firearms, they seem to be blind when Republicans were derelict in their Constitutional duty to provide advice and consent on any presidential nomination to the Supreme Court.
For Obama the Lame Duck period began when the Country did not give Democrats the Congress in 2014. America rejected the Obama agenda and denied him the power, the Legislature made the right call.
I don't believe for a second you aren't a raving trumpette.
Maybe you are just smarter than most by having some self awareness that it isn't a good look.
(10-04-2018, 07:53 PM)lastonealive Wrote: [ -> ]I don't believe for a second you aren't a raving trumpette.
Maybe you are just smarter than most by having some self awareness that it isn't a good look.
'Isn't a good look', meaning that it comports with hateful intolerant leftist labels? That's rich. I'm glad to hear the left's seething facial tic hostility dictates what looks good.
(10-04-2018, 07:53 PM)lastonealive Wrote: [ -> ]I don't believe for a second you aren't a raving trumpette.
Maybe you are just smarter than most by having some self awareness that it isn't a good look.
Card-carrying, Big L Libertarian since 1990 thanks. Believe what you want, I don't care. Republicans are squishy Moderates as far as I'm concerned.
You seem very defensive over Trump. Seems to have United all the crazies
(10-04-2018, 10:14 PM)lastonealive Wrote: [ -> ]You seem very defensive over Trump. Seems to have United all the crazies
Crazies? Lol, I'm glad you're back, I've missed your humour.
I appreciate the correct form of language too.
(10-04-2018, 09:39 PM)homebiscuit Wrote: [ -> ] (10-04-2018, 07:53 PM)lastonealive Wrote: [ -> ]I don't believe for a second you aren't a raving trumpette.
Maybe you are just smarter than most by having some self awareness that it isn't a good look.
'Isn't a good look', meaning that it comports with hateful intolerant leftist labels? That's rich. I'm glad to hear the left's seething facial tic hostility dictates what looks good.
Yes it's not a good look. He's a big loudmouth idiot who can't handle any reasonable debate or discussion. I wouldn't even call Trump a right winger so it's not a left and right thing.
(10-04-2018, 10:27 PM)lastonealive Wrote: [ -> ]I appreciate the correct form of language too.
(10-04-2018, 09:39 PM)homebiscuit Wrote: [ -> ]'Isn't a good look', meaning that it comports with hateful intolerant leftist labels? That's rich. I'm glad to hear the left's seething facial tic hostility dictates what looks good.
Yes it's not a good look. He's a big loudmouth idiot who can't handle any reasonable debate or discussion. I wouldn't even call Trump a right winger so it's not a left and right thing.
Whining isn’t a good look.
(10-04-2018, 10:27 PM)lastonealive Wrote: [ -> ]I appreciate the correct form of language too.
(10-04-2018, 09:39 PM)homebiscuit Wrote: [ -> ]'Isn't a good look', meaning that it comports with hateful intolerant leftist labels? That's rich. I'm glad to hear the left's seething facial tic hostility dictates what looks good.
Yes it's not a good look. He's a big loudmouth idiot who can't handle any reasonable debate or discussion. I wouldn't even call Trump a right winger so it's not a left and right thing.
Beating 17 highly qualified seasoned senators and governors in numerous debates = "can't handle any reasonable debate or discussion".
Got it.
(10-04-2018, 05:37 PM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ] (10-04-2018, 04:11 PM)rollerjag Wrote: [ -> ]Lol, you don't even know what the term "lame duck" means. The lame duck period is between the election and the new president's inauguration. Merrick Garland was nominated months before the 2016 election, not unlike 17 other SCOTUS nominations made in election years. His was no more a lame duck nomination than Reagan's nomination of Justice Kennedy who, by the way, was confirmed unanimously by a Democratic congress. Trumpettes like to call (Electoral College) Scoreboard when defending Trump's actions yet will deny the will of the people who elected Obama to a second term, and while they support the U.S. Constitution when it comes to keeping their beloved firearms, they seem to be blind when Republicans were derelict in their Constitutional duty to provide advice and consent on any presidential nomination to the Supreme Court.
For Obama the Lame Duck period began when the Country did not give Democrats the Congress in 2014. America rejected the Obama agenda and denied him the power, the Legislature made the right call.
Words mean things. That word doesn't mean that thing and never did.
The midterms we're never supposed to be about the President. If the founders thought that the people were unable to consider a new election for Congress without making it about the President, they would have made the terms in office of the President and Congress match. They never would have allowed the possibility of this two-year lane duck period you describe.
(10-05-2018, 08:27 AM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ] (10-04-2018, 05:37 PM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ]For Obama the Lame Duck period began when the Country did not give Democrats the Congress in 2014. America rejected the Obama agenda and denied him the power, the Legislature made the right call.
Words mean things. That word doesn't mean that thing and never did.
The midterms we're never supposed to be about the President. If the founders thought that the people were unable to consider a new election for Congress without making it about the President, they would have made the terms in office of the President and Congress match. They never would have allowed the possibility of this two-year lane duck period you describe.
And, right on cue, here comes Mikie the True Republican to denounce the only thing his supposed Party did in the last 4 years that stood up to the Democrats. Good to see the subservients are still out there where we left them back in 2017.
(10-05-2018, 07:53 AM)StroudCrowd1 Wrote: [ -> ] (10-04-2018, 10:27 PM)lastonealive Wrote: [ -> ]I appreciate the correct form of language too.
Yes it's not a good look. He's a big loudmouth idiot who can't handle any reasonable debate or discussion. I wouldn't even call Trump a right winger so it's not a left and right thing.
Beating 17 highly qualified seasoned senators and governors in numerous debates = "can't handle any reasonable debate or discussion".
Got it.
![[Image: trump-reaction-gif-5.gif]](https://gifimage.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/trump-reaction-gif-5.gif)
And here comes flsprtgod, who is afraid to take any responsibility for anything. Oh, he's a "Libertarian", i.e., "I can pretend to be part of something, but it's so vague I can denounce any and all and not be called to account for anyone or any thing."
In other words, I'm gutless. But at least I can praise a sleazoid like Donald while claiming I was never for him. You were so desirous of not voting for Hillary that you ended up with The Clown and you're so emotionally invested that you have to claim that standby dodge of being a "Libertarian".
Can't wait for the response - but, but, but, I really am a Libertarian! A Libertarian praising Donald? Someone is confused.
Gutless? Go back to the campaign he criticised trump a lot in the run up.
Ask for this. Up about lame duck a lot of people refer to a president as being a lame duck after the midterms in his second term.
No we have former FBI agents trying to pressure leland keyser into perjury. This is just undignified
(10-05-2018, 08:47 AM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ] (10-05-2018, 08:27 AM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]Words mean things. That word doesn't mean that thing and never did.
The midterms we're never supposed to be about the President. If the founders thought that the people were unable to consider a new election for Congress without making it about the President, they would have made the terms in office of the President and Congress match. They never would have allowed the possibility of this two-year lane duck period you describe.
And, right on cue, here comes Mikie the True Republican to denounce the only thing his supposed Party did in the last 4 years that stood up to the Democrats. Good to see the subservients are still out there where we left them back in 2017.
As I told you before, it's not that I think the Republicans were wrong to refuse to confirm Garland. I just think this justification of a "Biden rule" or "lame duck period" is totally wrong and totally outside what the Founders would have said the Senate's duty is.
The Senate should have held hearings on him, asked him questions about his writings, and given him an up or down vote. They probably would have rejected him anyways, but they should have upheld our constitution and traditions by going through the process.
(10-05-2018, 10:19 AM)jj82284 Wrote: [ -> ]Gutless? Go back to the campaign he criticised trump a lot in the run up.
Ask for this. Up about lame duck a lot of people refer to a president as being a lame duck after the midterms in his second term.
No we have former FBI agents trying to pressure leland keyser into perjury. This is just undignified
Nope. Not in the dictionary. You guys just made it up, and now you've given yourself false memories about it.