(03-31-2023, 01:20 PM)NH3 Wrote:

(03-31-2023, 09:44 AM)Lucky2Last Wrote: Lol, just started looking up the claim about Michelle Obama. It's a lie. Lol. Geez. Even politifact couldn't scrounge up enough BS to make it true. Please show me if I'm wrong, because I didn't spend a lot of time on the subject.

Trump memo outlines end to Michelle Obama's girls education program - CNN https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2017/05/01/polit...index.html

Sir, I truly don't mean to go back and forth w/you as being an Trumpster. I NEVER Have nor Will I Ever say, post something that I know not to be true. You Sir stated that you started looking up the subject and deemed me to be an Liar. I recommend that you continue to look it up as per me giving you an head start.

You're Welcome Sir.

NH3...

Ok buddy, I believe you. You're not a liar. You are just certain of something you can't know, which is just as bad. Now that I think it about it, doesn't that make you a liar since you said you wouldn't post something you didn't KNOW to be true? Let's examine: To refresh, this was your original statement: "He shut dow an school that catered to African American girls to which Mrs. Obama created and he did it on her Birthday.  Look it up of which I just stated."

So, your claim is that Donald Trump went after one of Michelle Obama's programs and did it on her birthday to be spiteful. Now, I would never put anything beneath Donald J. Trump. He's a petty dude. Yet even your article states that the White House was not making any specific plans for those programs. It was the director of the Peace Corps that sent that memo, not DJT.

After doing some digging, it looks like those programs were cut, but not because of any specific plans to cut them. Looks like the Trump administration made broad cuts to the Peace Corps, USAID, and State Department. I mean, it's clear you have no problem attributing all fo the world's ills to DJT, but he has people who do this [BLEEP] for him, and then, once there's budget cuts, directors have to make tough calls. I know from everything that I have looked at, I didn't find any definitive proof that this was a call made by Trump. That CNN article you linked certainly didn't make that case. Politifact couldn't make that case. 

It just seems like you are happy to present possibilities as if they are facts. Since it's not something you can KNOW it's a fact, doesn't that make you a liar based on that claim?

You know, like most black folks who supported Trump were paid. Did he pay for the black male vote as well? Because that increased by 6% while he was in office. He gained 5% among Hispanic women, too... that sure must have cost him a lot of money. Wonder if he used campaign funds to pay for all that. Hope so, or we can send him to jail.

---

(03-31-2023, 12:43 PM)mikesez Wrote:

(03-31-2023, 11:35 AM)Lucky2Last Wrote: I have no problem with this, except that Soros has an anti-American agenda, which has come out of his own mouth. He used to be considered a coward and a radical. Now he makes destructive policy like we are seeing anywhere there is a Soros backed DA. What are the Koch brothers doing? I'm sure they want to bring back the KKK or something, right?

Well that's where the debate should be, on Soros' ideas.  But that's not where McCarthy and the others who demonize him put it.  
What the Kochs do is not relevant to my point.  Some democrats pronounce their names as a curse the same way Republicans do to Soros.  It's engaging the amygdala either way, a dirty trick.  Nothing more than calling for us to hate Goldstein for two minutes. They don't ever mention his alleged desire to reduce American strength because they don't want to engage that part of our brains.

That IS where the debate is, dummy. The point is that Democrats are being led by a guy that is anti-American. They mention Soros funding because there is a pattern you see among DA's he appoints. They go soft on crime and the area gets overrun with criminals. Unless, of course, you need a DA to manufacture intent to prosecute a former President. Then we follow the letter of the law, even though it's darn near impossible to prove intent. Oh, yeah, btw, the intent can be anything we want it to be, so if he HAD done what they say he SHOULD have done, they could still prosecute him JUST by changing intent. Isn't that neat?

---