Traveler19491

Kennedy has been, for years now, one of the few sane "conservative" voices on the court. Roberts ("We live in a post-racial society"), Thomas (who has asked a total of one question from the bench in the last ten years), Alito, and Gorsuch are all borderline extremists. Ginsburg is the same on the left. While I typically disagreed with Kennedy's conservative positions, they were usually well-reasoned and based in reality. The other "conservatives" base their arguments on ideology and not on a modern interpretation of the Constitution. It will be a shame to see him go as I fear that Trump or Pence will appoint Justices friendly to a vastly more extremist/theocratic approach. 

3 minutes ago, PattayaJames said:

Sorry to have to tell you this but, IF there were any evidence it would have leaked!

As we used to say on the CB radio when I was driving a truck, "Negatory, good buddy". Just because you haven't seen it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. I suspect that many trumpies like you were howling at the moon about Benghazi and how you were absolutely convinced of Clinton's guilt despite the first shred of evidence. After a hyper-exhaustive investigation. And there were eight of those money-wasting things. So demanding evidence of the orange one's guilt at this point is just a tad hypocritical. Sorry, let me correct that. MASSIVELY hypocritical.

2 hours ago, Si Thea01 said:

I would suggest you follow your own advice, because if you say that Farang 1979 never said Trump admitted, no he never said admitted, he said acknowledged and here is the exact quotes, the first relating to a Tweet and then what Farang 1979 wrote about colluding, then you really have no idea, do you?.

 

"Another tweet. "The Obama Administration knew far in advance of November 8th about election meddling by Russia. Did nothing about it. WHY?"

 

"So now he's finally acknowledging there was Russian collusion in an election he WON."

 

My comprehension is appalling?  Please, if you want to criticise, then at least get it right before you do so, as to write what you have and then get caught out is more appalling.  And don't worry, I don't need an apology, just to show others how foolish one is when they go where angels fear to tread is enough.

 

Sorry, but you twisted his words. Farang1979 did use the word "collusion", however, if you read in context (something most trumpettes have no use for) it becomes obvious to all but the most obtuse that he was not referring to Trump admitting to collusion in the same sense as the investigation. No, as I stated earlier, Trump was not admitting to any wrongdoing on his part, just to the fact that Russia did meddle in our election. Trump stated Russian collusion (which is factually correct...Russia would have had to engage in collusion amongst their various governmental entities in order to pull off their meddling), not his own collusion with them. Not only is your reading comprehension appalling, your understanding of grammar and context is sadly lacking.

11 hours ago, Si Thea01 said:

Where has he admitted collusion, all he has stated is that Obama knew and did nothing.  How did you deduce that to be acknowledging anything or are you suggesting that Obama colluded and not the POTUS.   Another TVF detective at work, changing words to suit the agenda hey?  The rest of your offering is not worth commenting on.

Try re-reading the post. Farang 1979 never said that Trump was admitting that he colluded. He was referring to the fact that Trump finally admitted that the Russians meddled with our election. Your lack of reading comprehension IS worth commenting on. It is appalling.

Trump wouldn't recognize the truth if it bit him in the ass...which is seems to be doing on a regular basis lately.

On 6/22/2017 at 3:21 PM, alocacoc said:

You are deluded.

stupid: 

1a :  slow of mind :  obtuseb :  given to unintelligent decisions or acts :  acting in an unintelligent or careless mannerc :  lacking intelligence or reason :  brutish

Trump says Putin will never go into Ukraine. Putin is already in Ukraine.

Trump says he will overhaul healthcare because he knows more about healthcare than anyone. After failing, "Nobody knew healthcare could be so complicated."

Trump insists his inauguration was the largest ever, despite photographic evidence to the contrary.

Trump shoves PM of Montenegro aside just to get to head of the pack for photo op.

Trump promotes birther conspiracy.

Trump insists Obama wiretapped him.

Trump says he'd like to date his daughter.

Trump says Cruz's father was involved in Kennedy assassination.

Trump campaigns hard for House healthcare bill, has big celebration in the Rose Garden telling Republicans, "It's going go be an unbelievable victory...when we get it through the Senate", then turns around and tells GOP Senators that the House bill was "mean".

Trump: "I thought being President would be easier than my old life."

Trump: "You know, it really doesn't matter what the media write as long as you've got a young and beautiful piece of ass."

Trump: "Despite the negative press covfefe."

Trump: "Why can't we use nuclear weapons?"

Trump: "I always wanted to get the Purple Heart. This was much easier."

Trump: "I know more about ISIS than the generals do, believe me." (Probably because of all those years of dedicated, patriotic military service...oh, wait...)

This isn't even a thimble full of the totality of his stupidity. Seems you are the delusional one.

On 6/21/2017 at 10:02 PM, Rancid said:

If the Russians did in fact do what was claimed, it would be nice to see at least one single shred of actual evidence as opposed to the current McCarthyist witch hunt.

 

Reminds me of the old proven & reliable test for witches, throw them in the river, if they float they are witches, if they drown they were actually innocent, oops.

Perhaps it's time that the Assistant AG, the Special Counsel, the FBI, CIA, NSA, and the rest of the alphabet soup wake up and realize that their actual responsibility lies not in getting at the truth, not in keeping the results of their investigation confidential so as not to tip their hand to those who are being or may eventually be investigated, not in following standard investigative procedure. NO!  Their real responsibility lies in answering to the trumpettes on ThaiVisa and heeding their demand to s**t or get off the pot! Prove now that Trump has done something wrong, or forever abandon the search for justice and holding those who may have violated the law accountable. It's high time they got their priorities straight!

Just gotta love the whiners. The Special Counsel is still hiring his staff, but in the eyes of the whiners, their orange messiah can not possibly have done anything wrong, because they know that there has been far more than enough time to dig out whatever might be hidden. Forget that it took two years to find Nixon's smoking gun. Forget that the cretins in the GOP spent four years investigating Clinton before bringing impeachment charges. The trumpettes require immediate resolution, and they're going to continue to whine until the U. S. government accedes to their demands!!!

Sorry, kids. Afraid you'll just have to go out and buy some more tissues.

4 hours ago, SOUTHERNSTAR said:

Here is the reason why the Democrates are losing election after election: Michael Moore tweets "...get a <deleted>' clue. The DNC&DCCC has NO idea how 2 win cause they have no message, no plan, no leaders, won't fight &hate the resistance 1:15 AM - 22 Jun 2017". The Russiaphobia today is the same as what occurred in the fifties, which was nothing but witch hunts which ruined innocent people's lives. Instead of blaming Russia for everything look inwards and correct what is wrong inside the party. The DNC pushed a toxic candidate in HRC and lost because she was arrogant and disconnected from the people. If the DNC pushed for Bernie we may have had a Dems president now and that can't be blamed on the Russians. The DNC leaks was not Russia but a DNC employee, Assange confirmed this several times. Stop blaming other people for your failures and man up.

I have to agree with you on this one. The reason that the Democrats can't win an election is because of the current unprincipled, immoral, and elitist cadre of "leadership" they insist on clinging to. Pelosi is pathetic, as is Debbie Wasserman Schultz and the rest of the neo-liberal elitists who have a death grip on the party. They have next to nothing to offer voters in terms of a genuine alternative. They are funded by the same corporate entities and lobbyists who own the RNC. None of them have a genuine Progressive bone in their bodies. They are looking out for themselves and themselves only. You are correct in that Clinton was toxic. She is just more of the same. But the DNC wanted a coronation of their queen and so engineered the defeat of the overwhelming favorite of the Democrat base, as well as the centrists who were looking for real change. So they lost. Same thing in Georgia. Ossoff ran offered little in the way of substantive difference from Clinton and the DNC "leadership". Until the voters on the left become seriously energized and determine to either take the party back, or form a third party that speaks to what the country wants, they will continue to lose elections. People are fed up with voting for the "lesser of two evils", which is about all we've been given for a long time now, both in our Presidential candidates and those running for Congress.

However, have to disagree about the "Russiaphobia" and "witch hunt" thingies. Russia hacked our election. Proven. We don't care much for any attack on our democratic process, any more than you would on yours (if you're not American). No one's life will be destroyed...unless they aided in the process. Then, their life should be destroyed, as they were complicit in an attack on our democracy and our Constitutional principles. 

1 hour ago, Baerboxer said:

Regardless of reality, if something is repeated often enough, elaborated on, repeated some more, etc etc, then eventually parts of it become embedded as "fact".

 

Trump shook the "establishment" as he beat their anointed candidate. Now they are trying to find a way to get back control, because they can't control him, anyway they can. 

 

Quite frankly, all this repeated mumbo jumbo is just that.  The US establishment play on anti Russian sentiments just as the Tory right wing play on anti immigration fears.

 

Trump may well prove to be a complete moron who really understands very little and deliver bugger all. 

 

But put in office by a Russian conspiracy - more Hollywood than reality. He's more likely to end up warring with the Russians how thinks are going rather than being their best mate.

Sorry to burst your bubble, but this is not the case. Pretty much all Americans accept that Trump was elected and no, they are not "trying to find a way to get back control". What this investigation is all about is determining to what extent Russia meddled in our election (keep in mind, this was our election, that of a sovereign nation. We don't really appreciate somebody messing with our electoral process. We do a fine job of that all by ourselves.) along with what extent, if any, Trump and or his minions aided or encouraged them. And when all 17 or our intelligence agencies concur that the Russians did, in fact, do their damnedest to meddle, then that does not meet the standard of playing "on anti-Russian sentiments". The Russians meddled. Any negative sentiments that exist they managed to create all by themselves. No one is asserting that Trump was "put in office by a Russian conspiracy". What is being investigated is how they interfered, to what extent, if any, Trump or his band of bumbling idiots helped, to what degree, if any, it aided in Trump's win, and how to prevent it in the future.

3 hours ago, rucus7 said:

As an American I am biased. I have never voted for a Republican. I think TV members from other countries should weigh in as to how Trump is perceived by the rest of the world. 

I'm American also, but there is a large expat community where I live and almost to a person they all think that Trump is a buffoon, enormously unqualified to govern. This includes English, Irish, Scots, Welsh, Australians, Dutch, Norwegians, Swiss, Germans and even a few Thais. Several of these individuals are reasonably conservative in their political opinions, and even they can not understand how Americans could manage to elect someone so egregiously unqualified, inept, and completely lacking in even the most basic of social political, and diplomatic etiquette.

Interesting that they still feel this is needed. We were told by the "almighty" orange one that both versions of the Muslim travel ban were needed to give this so-called administration time to revamp immigration procedures. It's been over 90 days, so why do they still need the Muslim ban. Oh, and there have been no terrorist attacks by Muslim immigrants in the U. S. during that time, something that the so-called administration intimated was "imminent" and why the ban was so vital. So, why do they still need the ban? Have they done nothing during the 90 days they said they needed? (Sorry, rhetorical question.)

One more item...to all of the trumpettes who will want to jump all over this post screaming about how this was NOT a Muslim ban. Trump's "tweet storm" railing against the DoJ for coming up with a watered-down, "politically correct" ban (Trump's words) did more to harm his position than any arguments offered to the courts by his opposition to date. He threw the Solicitor General under the bus, stating in essence that his ban was, in fact, religiously based, I suspect Kennedy will take note. Here's an interesting summary of the damage done by the orange one to his own EO:

"So, here is the president’s commentary on this lawyer’s solemn assurances to the court: (1) the lawyers lied: it is a “travel ban”; (2) it’s not the president’s personal considered judgment at all, it was written—badly—by wimpy Justice Department lawyers; (3) despite what the lawyers said, it is in fact a “watered-down” version of the explicitly religious ban; (4) if the government gets approval of the “watered-down” version it will push for something stronger; (5) never mind the brief’s “political correctness,” we know what the ban really is about; and (6) the Supreme Court had damned well better get out of my way or I will—as I did with the courts below—attack its very legitimacy." (https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/06/trumps-tweets-may-have-sunk-his-travel-ban/529167/)

Trump...his own worst enemy.

27 minutes ago, Thakkar said:

Trump supporter debate strategy:

 

1. Make a claim.

    - Claim is refuted.

 

2. Ask for proof.

     - Proof is provided.

 

3. Dispute the source.

     - Other sources are provided.

 

4. Post link to InfoWars as counter argument.

     - Post deleted by moderators due to forum rules against brain farts.

 

5. Deflect to Hillary

     - Deflection deleted, see above rule.

 

6. "Who cares? #MAGA!!"

     - Normal people: "???"

 

T

Welcome to TrumpWorld !!! (Past performance is definitely a guarantee of future results)

23 minutes ago, stevenl said:

According to the OP:

So quite a difference from Mother Jones. I have no idea who is correct, though I presume the Ops numbers are the numbers as DT gave them (therefor unreliable).

I would tend to agree with you. Just the fact that he is required by the ethics laws (c'mon...Trump/ethics???) to disclose all of his debt does not in any way mean that he has. I'm sure he has some very "creative" ways of claiming that debt he owes is not his. From the Mother Jones article:

" is a list of all the financial players that Trump owes money to and how much Trump directly has borrowed from each one. This roster is based on publicly available loan documents. According to his own public disclosure, Trump, as of May, was on the hook for 16 loans worth at least $713 million. This list does not include an estimated $2 billion in debt amassed by real estate partnerships that include Trump. One of those loans is a $950 million deal that was cobbled together by Goldman Sachs and the state-owned Bank of China—an arrangement that ethics experts believe violates the Constitution’s emolument clause, which prohibits foreign governments from providing financial benefits to federal officials."

11 hours ago, funandsuninbangkok said:

Wrong oh my financial fudge cycle

 

http://www.laddercapital.com/

 

Donald's biggest lender. Prime US financial company

Wrong again. Trump owes Deutsche Bank $362 million. He owes Ladder Capital $282 million. So, unless arithmetic has somehow suddenly turned upside down, that means that Ladder is his number two lender. Also note, Ladder is not a major player in the money markets. It is more of a brokerage house that works with the likes of Deutsche Bank, Goldman Sachs, and others to put loans together which it then turns around and sells to investors. And your adjective..."Prime".  Seriously?  (Donnie? Is that you? Your staff finally take your Twitter away and now you've had to come to TV to get the message of your "greatness" out?)

"Ladder Capital is not a traditional bank or a big name on Wall Street..."

"Ladder Capital is a small Wall Street firm that specializes in loaning money for commercial real estate projects..."

It is NOT a bank. The contention was that American banks would not lend to Trump. That contention still remains true. Nice try, though.

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2016/12/guide-donald-trump-debt/

1 hour ago, funandsuninbangkok said:

Why would you assume he cannot borrow in America? Because he has loans with a German bank?

 

would you assume he can't get a Ford because he drives a Porsche?

 

Married  a Slovenian woman , can't get an American?

 

how about you?  Living in some third world hovel because things were so great in your home country?

 

 

 

 

Trump borrows from Deutsche Bank for the simple reason that American banks shun him. If that is not a fact, given his "Make America Great Again" mantra, then why isn't he borrowing from American banks to bring that business back to American shores? Hypocrisy, perhaps? Or the fact that no American bank will touch him? Additionally, Trump had to personally guarantee the loans from Deutsche Bank. If he's such a sterling business man, then why did the bank demand his personal guarantee, something he has bragged about never having to do before? On top of that, the DoJ is investigating Deutsche Bank for moving money for Russian mafia types under dubious conditions. Ah, there's the Don being in the neighborhood of criminal types again. Nothing all that unusual, though.

http://fortune.com/2016/03/21/donald-trump-bank-loans/

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2016/12/guide-donald-trump-debt/

https://therealdeal.com/2017/03/27/donald-trump-still-personally-guarantees-300m-in-deutsche-bank-loans/

Yes, the Donald...nothing questionable there at all.

3 hours ago, daboyz1 said:

I think you're confusing what one does with their own money versus what they do with investor money.

The creator of PayPal did it to make a profit. The investors expect that. If it happened to make the world a better place. ... great.

You won't have many investors if your primary pitch is making the world a better place while ignoring the bottom line.

And yet you are wrong once again. What a surprise. https://www.wsj.com/articles/does-socially-responsible-investing-make-financial-sense-1456715888

23 minutes ago, daboyz1 said:

It's one thing to call him out on lies, of which he has many.  He lies constantly as do all politicians.  It's something entirely different when the media starts doing the same in retaliation.  They are no longer the unbiased media IMO.  They have become entertainment, the same as the Kardashians. 

As I said, I await your facts that demonstrate that the headline is, in your words, "misleading". Still waiting. And now, I await your facts that concretely prove that the media has lied about Trump. 

Note: a factually incorrect assertion in the media that is later corrected or retracted is not a lie. It is an error that has been corrected. Something Trump has never done.

16 minutes ago, Dagnabbit said:

 

No - I mean "Bro-business" just like "Bro-Science" - in other words a brand of reasoning based on zero education or experience deemed more credible than people that run businesses. 

 

As your post exemplifies. 

A little background. I operated my own financial planning company for several years. I held licenses in insurance and investments, including a Series 7 stock broker's license from the National Association of Securities Dealers, the self-policing private agency that oversees all investment professionals under the auspices of the SEC.

I taught licensing courses for people who wanted to acquire their investment credentials, courses that had to be approved in advance by the NASD. Part of that educational process is developing an in-depth familiarity with all things related to business and business financing, including stocks, bonds, debentures, limited partnerships, bank financing, corporate structure, investor relations, and the laws related to what is and isn't permissible in business finance. Your silly little reference to "Bro-business" is assinine in the extreme, and accomplishes nothing more than illuminate your own lack of knowledge. Arguing this subject with you is like playing chess with someone who has yet to grasp the concept of checkers. Like I said, come back when you can offer an insult with some teeth.

3 minutes ago, daboyz1 said:

 There's how the media works when it comes to Trump.  He's declared war on them and they've taken up the challenge.

"People may not always think big themselves, but they can still get very excited by those who do. That's why a little hyperbole never hurts," Trump wrote in his 1987 best-seller The Art of the Deal. "People want to believe that something is the biggest and the greatest and the most spectacular. I call it truthful hyperbole. It's an innocent form of exaggeration — and a very effective form of promotion."

(Trump - The Art of the Deal)

Trump has always played loose with the truth. He has always employed his lies, exaggerations, and half-truths as a means of attracting attention to himself. And it has always worked. Until it continued to "work" in a manner that he didn't like. Lying/exaggerating as a means of self-promotion are more or less benign in business, so long as you are not committing fraud (like with Trump University). However, when you are running for office and asking for basically unlimited power, you can't expect a tactic like that to go unchallenged. And the one thing Trump can not tolerate is being challenged. He has to win.

He started his campaign lies all the way back in 2011 when he was toying with the idea of running against Obama. The press called him out every time. He despised that, which formed his hatred of the press. It has never been the press being malicious. It has been them refusing to allow him to pass off his BS as the truth, so they have persistently gone after any and all claims that he has made, the result being his almost incalculable number of falsehoods being exposed. Now, the orange one has labeled the press as "an enemy of the people". Dictators do that. In banana republics. Not politicians who recognize the First Amendment and strive to defend it. No President has had an amiable relationship with the press. But Trump's over-the-top adversarial relationship is of his own doing.

And his followers lap it up. Lemmings.

7 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

Newt Gingrich Now Says the President “Technically” Can’t Even Obstruct Justice

There should be a daily column called: Things Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich Used to Think vs. Things Newt Gingrich Random American Now Thinks and Often Says Out Loud on Fox News. 

New Gingrich’s views on obstruction of justice are a wee bit divergent from when his role as the Speaker of the House was LEADING the charge against President Bill Clinton and VOTING to impeach Clinton for articles of impeachment that included, among other things, an obstruction of justice charge. "What you have lived through for 2.5 long years is the most systematic, deliberate obstruction-of-justice, cover-up, and effort to avoid the truth we have ever seen in American history," Gingrich said in 1998.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2017/06/17/newt_gingrich_now_says_the_president_technically_can_t_even_obstruct_justice.html

 

In fairness to Gingrich, it may be that he didn't see this until just the other day, and that's what changed his mind.  

Just now, Dagnabbit said:

 

Actually I was pointing out the naivety of some people.

There are university professors that teach business that understand why debt is used.

It is not lack of success we see reflected here but lack of knowledge. Bro-business accumen...

Sent from my SM-A720F using Tapatalk
 

 

I suspect you meant "Pro-business". Typos happen.

I never indicated at any point that borrowing is not an oftentimes necessary business practice. Having owned my own business in the past, I realize its usefulness. However, Trump uses it as a primary means of funding his businesses, very, very few of which have ever succeeded. Ergo, it becomes a reasonable inference that he abuses it, which inference is supported by the fact that traditional channels of lending are now closed to him and he is forced to either borrow via bonds, always of junk status, or look to highly questionable and most definitely non-traditional avenues, like going to Russian oligarchs. Not necessarily a wise move, especially for a President, as that leaves him open to potential pressure.

3 minutes ago, alocacoc said:

No, but your post was completely off-topic.

Hardly. Dagnabbit inserted a comment to the effect that anyone not already an enormous success in business lacked the qualifications to criticize Trump's debt. He then compared Richard Branson's failures to Trump's in an attempt to assert that Trump's were somehow legitimate. I countered, explaining that to compare Trump's business character to Branson's is ludicrous. How is that off-topic?

11 minutes ago, alocacoc said:

lol, what do you speak about?

Apparently, you have difficulty with literate English. That would explain a lot.

7 minutes ago, daboyz1 said:

Based on the tone of your post, you've already made up your mind and presenting facts to you would be a waste of my time.

Keep on living life with your head buried in the sand and believing everything the media spoon feeds you.

Au contraire, my dear wise one. Unlike you, I am willing to entertain facts that don't match my beliefs. Unlike Trump supporters, I have changed my mind on any number of political issues. Abortion, for instance. My openness to the arguments of others led me to change my belief system. I once opposed abortion, totally. I now support it on a limited basis...for rape, incest, and to save the mother's life. I still oppose abortion on demand. So, if you actually have facts that demonstrate that the headline is misleading, I invite you to post such. I'll wait. But I suspect I'll be waiting a long, long, long time.

Just now, Dagnabbit said:

 

Nice wall of text.

In your blind hatred of all things Trump, you have missed the fact I didn't compare anybody with anyone else.

So there goes 15 mins drafting a reply full of righteous indignation over something that wasnt said.

As you are obviously such an accomplished business person, perhaps you can share the secrets of your own success... presumably you are a billionaire?

Nope?

Just an armchair CEO???


Sent from my SM-A720F using Tapatalk
 

 

Nice totally vacuous reply. Your reading comprehension is seriously lacking. Mentioning Branson's accomplishments/business tactics in a direct reference to Trump is, in fact, a comparison. You mention Branson's failures in response to a comment about Trump's failures. How is that not a comparison? And just because it would take you 15 minutes of laborious composition to come up with something of the sort that I posted does not mean that I would suffer the same inadequacy. Nice try at an insult, but no donut. And you may not have noticed, but it's not my business acumen that is the subject of the article. Trump being a public figure leaves him open to criticism by anyone. In response to your lame question about my net worth and your belief that it disqualifies me from having and voicing an opinion, I would ask the same. How many billions do you possess that permits you the ability to assert that Trump is the success you seem to believe? The fact is that, no, I'm not a billionaire. But then, neither did my daddy leave me $200 million when he died. Had he, I strongly suspect I would be richer than Trump, because I would have had the common sense he lacks and realized that I'm not a business type, so I would have done what he didn't, and invested my money, likely in index funds, which would have made me worth at least three times what he is.

Come back when you can posit an insult that has some teeth.