0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
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?
Quote from: SydneyRover on June 08, 2019, 09:32:47 amBut 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.
BSOk. 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.
The narcissistic force is strong with this one. https://mobile.twitter.com/axios/status/1136973534419456001
Quote from: BillyStubbsTears on June 07, 2019, 08:22:05 pmSo. 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.htmlEveryone knows it's made of cheese, the man is an idiot.
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
Quote from: SydneyRover on June 08, 2019, 12:01:56 amQuote from: BillyStubbsTears on June 07, 2019, 08:22:05 pmSo. 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.htmlEveryone knows it's made of cheese, the man is an idiot.Incorrect Sydney; it's made of green cheese. x
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?
BS.Who says there was no Russian collusion?
Quote from: Boomstick on June 08, 2019, 10:12:29 amQuote from: SydneyRover on June 08, 2019, 09:32:47 amBut 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
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?
Quote from: SydneyRover on June 10, 2019, 01:02:29 pmQuote from: Boomstick on June 08, 2019, 10:12:29 amQuote from: SydneyRover on June 08, 2019, 09:32:47 amBut 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-reportIt's certainly something I don't agree with. But it isn't a republican or democrat issue.
Quote from: BillyStubbsTears on June 10, 2019, 12:35:53 amJust 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?'