Trump

[Boomstick]

But BS he is a child, he's petulant and when confronted by the truth which is most of the time like a child he denies it, how are you supposed to deal with a naughty child?

You didn't respond to my question about the 10000 lies?

I agree with what you say about him, but there are ways you can discredit him without resorting to adhomenim attacks.
To deal with a petulant child, is by not being childish and petulant back.

I wouldn't consider myself a trump supporter, so not sure I could answer your question.
However given the choice between him and Clinton, I would have walked through barefoot through broken glass to vote for trump.

It's a real shame mcain didn't run, or win the nomination to run against Clinton.

[SydneyRover]

But BS he is a child, he's petulant and when confronted by the truth which is most of the time like a child he denies it, how are you supposed to deal with a naughty child?

You didn't respond to my question about the 10000 lies?

I agree with what you say about him, but there are ways you can discredit him without resorting to adhomenim attacks.
To deal with a petulant child, is by not being childish and petulant back.

I wouldn't consider myself a trump supporter, so not sure I could answer your question.
However given the choice between him and Clinton, I would have walked through barefoot through broken glass to vote for trump.

It's a real shame mcain didn't run, or win the nomination to run against Clinton.

I appreciate your reply even though it;s a bit scary, thanks BS

[BillyStubbsTears]

BS
Ok. I'll buy that.

In which case, his tweet is saying that NASA shouldn't send astronauts to the Moon. It should send them to Mars. Which involves sending them to the Moon.

[BillyStubbsTears]

The narcissistic force is strong with this one.

https://mobile.twitter.com/axios/status/1136973534419456001

[Boomstick]

BS
Ok. I'll buy that.

In which case, his tweet is saying that NASA shouldn't send astronauts to the Moon. It should send them to Mars. Which involves sending them to the Moon.

No, he's saying we should aim for Mars, and not just settle and stop at the moon.

Like I said, getting to Mars and perfecting the technology requires going back to the moon first.

[Glyn_Wigley]

The narcissistic force is strong with this one.

https://mobile.twitter.com/axios/status/1136973534419456001

Oh, I don't know. You normally sign underneath whatever you're declaring to have read and understood. So it's probably in the right place.

[scawsby steve]

So. The moon is a part of Mars?
https://mobile.twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1137051097955102720?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fd-10949656012897008051.ampproject.net%2F1905292322390%2Fframe.html

Everyone knows it's made of cheese, the man is an idiot.

Incorrect Sydney; it's made of green cheese. x

[BillyStubbsTears]

BS..
I salute your ability to read into Trump's borderline-illiterate ramblings what true meaning is hidden inside.

I've got a couple of thousand others here that you might want to have a go at too.

My favourite is the one that says the Mueller Report totally exonerated him of criminal activity, when the Mueller Report text said in black and white that it didn't exonerate him.

Any ideas what he meant by that one?

[SydneyRover]

So. The moon is a part of Mars?
https://mobile.twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1137051097955102720?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fd-10949656012897008051.ampproject.net%2F1905292322390%2Fframe.html

Everyone knows it's made of cheese, the man is an idiot.

Incorrect Sydney; it's made of green cheese. x

Cheese, green cheese just need crackers-trump?

[SydneyRover]

''Can Trump win in 2020? This Pennsylvania county may be an indicator''

''Frank Behum worked at Bethlehem Steel for 32 years. “The president is a pathological liar,” Behum said on a recent morning near the silent row of rusting blast furnaces that went extinct 25 years ago. “He can’t help himself. He’s been doing it his whole life and getting away with it.”

Noooo this can't be true, our Don, the Donald Trump-a liar, you must have the wrong guy?

com/us-news/2019/jun/09/will-trump-win-2020-voters-pennsylvania-county-indicator-chance

[Boomstick]

BS..
I salute your ability to read into Trump's borderline-illiterate ramblings what true meaning is hidden inside.

I've got a couple of thousand others here that you might want to have a go at too.

My favourite is the one that says the Mueller Report totally exonerated him of criminal activity, when the Mueller Report text said in black and white that it didn't exonerate him.

Any ideas what he meant by that one?

Well it kinda depends who said it first doesn't it?.

Anyway, there wasn't any Russian collusion, that's all that matters.

As for being exonerated from any wrong doing?  Certainly doubt hillary, soros and his sjw rent a mobs can be exonerated either!

[BillyStubbsTears]

BS.

Who says there was no Russian collusion?

[Boomstick]

BS.

Who says there was no Russian collusion?

Innocent until proven guilty

[BillyStubbsTears]

So you're now not saying that there was no collusion?

I assume you know PRECISELY what Mueller concluded in his report?

[Boomstick]

Like I said, innocent until proven guilty.
If they can't prove guilt, then he's innocent of collusion.
Simple.

[BillyStubbsTears]

Just for the record, it's well worth reading precisely what Mueller said. In his executive summary, he uses a very specific set of words. He says that it is beyond doubt that the Russian Govt interfered with the 2016 Election in Trump's favour. He also says that there were many links between Russian Govt agents and individuals connected with the Trump Campaign, but "the evidence (of collusion) is not sufficient to support criminal charges."

I guess that's what you're referring to when you say Trump is innocent because that's the line that has been widely reported.

Just bear in mind for a moment, the specific words Mueller used "evidence is not sufficient to support criminal charges".

Not, "we found no evidence.." Rather, "the evidence we did find wasn't sufficient to support prosecution."

Because evidence isn't black and white. There are levels and shades of grey. And if a Special Investigator was going to accuse the President's team of treason, he would need to have cast-iron, A1 evidence.

With that in mind, now look at what he says in the very next paragraph (and remember that Mueller is smarter than anyone you or I have ever met, and would not have done this by accident).

He says, "the investigation established that several individuals connected to the Trump campaign lied to the Office (i.e. the Mueller investigation) and to Congress about their interactions with Russia -affiliated individuals and other matters. Those lies materially affected the investigation."

So. Comment on Mueller's inability to establish sufficient evidence for criminal action, immediately followed by comments about Trump associates lying to impede the investigation.

He then goes on to list the people who he has had sent down for lying to him and Congress and "materially affecting the investigation". Papadopoulos, Flynn, Cohen and Manafort.

Four very close associates of Trump's. Mueller states categorically that all of  them lied to prevent Mueller and/or Congress from finding out something about the Trump campaign's interaction with Russia. All four were prepared to do time for that.

Innocent until proven guilty, aye. Just like Mafia bosses often aren't found guilty because they have someone else take the fall to protect them.

EDIT.

Oh aye. I forgot to add. Mueller also says when talking about Trump's obstruction of the investigation (a Federal offence) that it was not his (Mueller's) role to determine guilt, but that if he had evidence that Trump was not guilty of obstruction, he would have said so. And he very pointedly said that he was not saying so.

So. Just stop and think.

There is the Special Investigator and ex-FBI chief saying in as clear a way as he is allowed to, that, if he were able to, he'd prosecute Trump for obstruction of the investigation into collusion with the Russians.

But...why would Trump have obstructed the investigation if he hadn't colluded with the Russians?

And why would 4 of his closest associated have obstructed the investigation into collusion with Russia and been prepared to serve time as a result, if there was no collusion with the Russians?

[SydneyRover]

But BS he is a child, he's petulant and when confronted by the truth which is most of the time like a child he denies it, how are you supposed to deal with a naughty child?

You didn't respond to my question about the 10000 lies?

I agree with what you say about him, but there are ways you can discredit him without resorting to adhomenim attacks.
To deal with a petulant child, is by not being childish and petulant back.

I wouldn't consider myself a trump supporter, so not sure I could answer your question.
However given the choice between him and Clinton, I would have walked through barefoot through broken glass to vote for trump.

It's a real shame mcain didn't run, or win the nomination to run against Clinton.

Sorry to keep coming back to this BS but like I said I thought your answer was a bit scary, another question, trump's relationship with the christian conservatives appears to be driving the wind-back of women's rights and new laws in the US and in poor countries around the world. Does this effect how you think regarding having democrats in office rather than the republicans.

''Trump’s anti-abortion global gag rule threatening women's lives, report says

‘People are dying’ in Africa and south Asia as a result of policy that bans aid to foreign groups who support abortions, says author of report''

https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2019/jun/05/trump-global-gag-rule-anti-abortion-harms-women-africa-asia-report

[Boomstick]

But BS he is a child, he's petulant and when confronted by the truth which is most of the time like a child he denies it, how are you supposed to deal with a naughty child?

You didn't respond to my question about the 10000 lies?

I agree with what you say about him, but there are ways you can discredit him without resorting to adhomenim attacks.
To deal with a petulant child, is by not being childish and petulant back.

I wouldn't consider myself a trump supporter, so not sure I could answer your question.
However given the choice between him and Clinton, I would have walked through barefoot through broken glass to vote for trump.

It's a real shame mcain didn't run, or win the nomination to run against Clinton.

Sorry to keep coming back to this BS but like I said I thought your answer was a bit scary, another question, trump's relationship with the christian conservatives appears to be driving the wind-back of women's rights and new laws in the US and in poor countries around the world. Does this effect how you think regarding having democrats in office rather than the republicans.

''Trump’s anti-abortion global gag rule threatening women's lives, report says

‘People are dying’ in Africa and south Asia as a result of policy that bans aid to foreign groups who support abortions, says author of report''

https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2019/jun/05/trump-global-gag-rule-anti-abortion-harms-women-africa-asia-report

It's certainly something I don't agree with.
But it isn't a republican or democrat issue.

[Boomstick]

Just for the record, it's well worth reading precisely what Mueller said. In his executive summary, he uses a very specific set of words. He says that it is beyond doubt that the Russian Govt interfered with the 2016 Election in Trump's favour. He also says that there were many links between Russian Govt agents and individuals connected with the Trump Campaign, but "the evidence (of collusion) is not sufficient to support criminal charges."

I guess that's what you're referring to when you say Trump is innocent because that's the line that has been widely reported.

Just bear in mind for a moment, the specific words Mueller used "evidence is not sufficient to support criminal charges".

Not, "we found no evidence.." Rather, "the evidence we did find wasn't sufficient to support prosecution."

Because evidence isn't black and white. There are levels and shades of grey. And if a Special Investigator was going to accuse the President's team of treason, he would need to have cast-iron, A1 evidence.

With that in mind, now look at what he says in the very next paragraph (and remember that Mueller is smarter than anyone you or I have ever met, and would not have done this by accident).

He says, "the investigation established that several individuals connected to the Trump campaign lied to the Office (i.e. the Mueller investigation) and to Congress about their interactions with Russia -affiliated individuals and other matters. Those lies materially affected the investigation."

So. Comment on Mueller's inability to establish sufficient evidence for criminal action, immediately followed by comments about Trump associates lying to impede the investigation.

He then goes on to list the people who he has had sent down for lying to him and Congress and "materially affecting the investigation". Papadopoulos, Flynn, Cohen and Manafort.

Four very close associates of Trump's. Mueller states categorically that all of  them lied to prevent Mueller and/or Congress from finding out something about the Trump campaign's interaction with Russia. All four were prepared to do time for that.

Innocent until proven guilty, aye. Just like Mafia bosses often aren't found guilty because they have someone else take the fall to protect them.

EDIT.

Oh aye. I forgot to add. Mueller also says when talking about Trump's obstruction of the investigation (a Federal offence) that it was not his (Mueller's) role to determine guilt, but that if he had evidence that Trump was not guilty of obstruction, he would have said so. And he very pointedly said that he was not saying so.

So. Just stop and think.

There is the Special Investigator and ex-FBI chief saying in as clear a way as he is allowed to, that, if he were able to, he'd prosecute Trump for obstruction of the investigation into collusion with the Russians.

But...why would Trump have obstructed the investigation if he hadn't colluded with the Russians?

And why would 4 of his closest associated have obstructed the investigation into collusion with Russia and been prepared to serve time as a result, if there was no collusion with the Russians?

So the conclusion is, 'he might be guilty of collusion, but we can't prove it?'

[SydneyRover]

But BS he is a child, he's petulant and when confronted by the truth which is most of the time like a child he denies it, how are you supposed to deal with a naughty child?

You didn't respond to my question about the 10000 lies?

I agree with what you say about him, but there are ways you can discredit him without resorting to adhomenim attacks.
To deal with a petulant child, is by not being childish and petulant back.

I wouldn't consider myself a trump supporter, so not sure I could answer your question.
However given the choice between him and Clinton, I would have walked through barefoot through broken glass to vote for trump.

It's a real shame mcain didn't run, or win the nomination to run against Clinton.

Sorry to keep coming back to this BS but like I said I thought your answer was a bit scary, another question, trump's relationship with the christian conservatives appears to be driving the wind-back of women's rights and new laws in the US and in poor countries around the world. Does this effect how you think regarding having democrats in office rather than the republicans.

''Trump’s anti-abortion global gag rule threatening women's lives, report says

‘People are dying’ in Africa and south Asia as a result of policy that bans aid to foreign groups who support abortions, says author of report''

https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2019/jun/05/trump-global-gag-rule-anti-abortion-harms-women-africa-asia-report

It's certainly something I don't agree with.
But it isn't a republican or democrat issue.

It's generally conservative/republicans that want to push these restrictions BS

''Abortion is a winning issue for Democrats – look at the historical record''

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/jun/10/abortion-democrats-record-winning-issue

[Glyn_Wigley]

Just for the record, it's well worth reading precisely what Mueller said. In his executive summary, he uses a very specific set of words. He says that it is beyond doubt that the Russian Govt interfered with the 2016 Election in Trump's favour. He also says that there were many links between Russian Govt agents and individuals connected with the Trump Campaign, but "the evidence (of collusion) is not sufficient to support criminal charges."

I guess that's what you're referring to when you say Trump is innocent because that's the line that has been widely reported.

Just bear in mind for a moment, the specific words Mueller used "evidence is not sufficient to support criminal charges".

Not, "we found no evidence.." Rather, "the evidence we did find wasn't sufficient to support prosecution."

Because evidence isn't black and white. There are levels and shades of grey. And if a Special Investigator was going to accuse the President's team of treason, he would need to have cast-iron, A1 evidence.

With that in mind, now look at what he says in the very next paragraph (and remember that Mueller is smarter than anyone you or I have ever met, and would not have done this by accident).

He says, "the investigation established that several individuals connected to the Trump campaign lied to the Office (i.e. the Mueller investigation) and to Congress about their interactions with Russia -affiliated individuals and other matters. Those lies materially affected the investigation."

So. Comment on Mueller's inability to establish sufficient evidence for criminal action, immediately followed by comments about Trump associates lying to impede the investigation.

He then goes on to list the people who he has had sent down for lying to him and Congress and "materially affecting the investigation". Papadopoulos, Flynn, Cohen and Manafort.

Four very close associates of Trump's. Mueller states categorically that all of  them lied to prevent Mueller and/or Congress from finding out something about the Trump campaign's interaction with Russia. All four were prepared to do time for that.

Innocent until proven guilty, aye. Just like Mafia bosses often aren't found guilty because they have someone else take the fall to protect them.

EDIT.

Oh aye. I forgot to add. Mueller also says when talking about Trump's obstruction of the investigation (a Federal offence) that it was not his (Mueller's) role to determine guilt, but that if he had evidence that Trump was not guilty of obstruction, he would have said so. And he very pointedly said that he was not saying so.

So. Just stop and think.

There is the Special Investigator and ex-FBI chief saying in as clear a way as he is allowed to, that, if he were able to, he'd prosecute Trump for obstruction of the investigation into collusion with the Russians.

But...why would Trump have obstructed the investigation if he hadn't colluded with the Russians?

And why would 4 of his closest associated have obstructed the investigation into collusion with Russia and been prepared to serve time as a result, if there was no collusion with the Russians?

So the conclusion is, 'he might be guilty of collusion, but we can't prove it?'

No, it's 'there's a case to answer but I (Mueller) can't do anything about it, Congress has to do it'.

[BillyStubbsTears]

BS

The conclusion is that there IS evidence but not strong enough to take to court. And one reason that the evidence isn't stronger is that 4 close associates lied under oath and went down. That's the story.

[SydneyRover]

Meanwhile back in Trump world

''Trump-Russia: House committee to see Mueller evidence

Deal comes as Democrats weigh up impeachment proceedings against Donald Trump''

''The House judiciary committee expects to receive the first files of underlying evidence from Robert Mueller’s report soon, after a sudden shift by the justice department as Democrats consider impeachment proceedings against Donald Trump.

It is unclear if the deal, announced moments before the start of a judiciary committee hearing with Watergate star witness John Dean, will ultimately be enough for Democrats, who have called for the full, unredacted report and underlying documentation from the special counsel’s work.

However, it signalled the first real breakthrough in the standoff over the report and came at the start of a week of increased activity by the House in the Trump-Russia investigation.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/jun/11/trump-russia-house-committee-to-see-mueller-evidence

[BillyStubbsTears]

Watch this. It is very important.

https://mobile.twitter.com/nowthisnews/status/1142261675095052288

Watch it. It's showing you where we are going and what we are normalising.

A Trump administration official stood in front of judges, justifying their policy of refusing to give soap and toothpaste to the children of migrants who have been separated from their parents and put in detainment camps.

Watch it. And ask yourself which side of history YOU want to be on when people look back on this era.

[BillyStubbsTears]

Well, that last post didn't seem to raise any response from the Trump supporters in here.

What about this one?

https://mobile.twitter.com/Peston/status/1146562018096365573

[idler]

I'm sure that his spin team will be working on a way to twist it around completely.
There doesn't seem any depths he won't stoop to. I wonder how history will judge him when all is revealed about his political career.

[wilts rover]

That's a great question Idler.

On his record to date I think he will be judged relatively kindly. His election campaign and personal conduct are not that remarkable for a US President and he has (so far) not involved them in any major international conflict.

Compare him for instance with:
George W Bush - allowed the conditions for the financial crash of 2008 and we and the Middle East are still suffering the fallout from the invasion of Iraq, ISIS, etc
Woodrow Wilson - took the US into WWI, crashed the post-war economy, saw his party humiliated in the next election and was one of the main movers behind punishing Germany in the Treaty of Versailles (which led to Hitler & WWII)
Richard Nixon - Watergate, impeachment, napalming villages, My Lai
Warren Harding (the bloke who succeeded Wilson) - notably corrupt, appointed friends and relatives to high government positions so blatantly that his Secretary of Interior was the first major official to be jailed for corruption whilst in office
Andrew Johnson - also impeached, tried to settle the fallout from the Civil War by introducing black segregation laws thereby nearly re-starting the war again
James Buchanan - interfered with the Supreme Court and oversaw the actual start of an actual Civil War that saw the death of over 1 million of his own people

[BillyStubbsTears]

Very skewed take on Wilson, Wilts.

Wilson's policy was entirely aimed at keeping the USA out of WWI until the Zimmerman Telegram and unrestricted U-Boat action forced his hand. At Versailles, Wilson was by far the most far-sighted of the Big Four and restrained the worst of Clemenceau's desire for vengeance on Germany. The history of the 20th century might have been very different if Congress had allowed him to take the USA into the League of Nations. Yes, the American economy hit the buffers after the war, as every economy inevitably did after the dislocation of war in those days. It's highly unfair to blame him for Keynes not having written his General Theory in 1919.

Can't argue with the assessments of the other Presidents. It'd be interesting to hear your take on Soviet/Russian leaders one day.

[BillyStubbsTears]

Well this could be interesting.
https://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/local/Jeffrey-Epstein-Arrest-Sources-Upper-East-Side-Mansion--512309731.html

Long-term party-friend of Trump's is had up on charges of trafficking under-age girls for sex-parties.

Trump said of him, a few years ago, "I've known Jeff for fifteen years. Terrific guy. He's a lot of fun to be with. It is even said that he likes beautiful women as much as I do, and many of them are on the younger side."

Just before the 2016 election, a woman abruptly dropped a legal case in which she'd claimed that Epstein had conned her into going to New York parties on the promise that he'd get her into the fashion model business. Instead, she claimed that she was coerced into a string of sexual acts with Trump, including play-acting a simulated rape that turned into an actual rape. She was 13 years old at the time.

Now, that never went to trial and it's nothing more than an untested allegation. But it'll be interesting to see what comes out of the Epstein case now that he's up in court. Because he's been in court before on child-sex allegations and he was effectively let off by the district attourney who dialed down the charges and let him get off with a plea-bargain which stopped him facing a charge that could have sent him down for life. That DA, incidentally, now has a very senior position in the Trump administration. And is under investigation by Congress for the way he let Epstein off previously.

[silent majority]

The Mueller report in 2 minutes, well worth a watch;

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o-CCxLmkn-w&feature=youtu.be