3 hours ago, Tippaporn said:

To insinuate that it's Trump's fault couldn't be more disingenuous.  It's such an outrageous claim that few would even consider it.  I doubt that even hard core far left libs believe it.

 

Well, you don't believe anything it Trump's fault anyway, so no biggy.

28 minutes ago, Berkshire said:

If you're referring to the Israel and Bahrain/UAE "peace" deals, you're greatly overstating what was really accomplished.  As even a novice Mideast observer will tell you, there really can't be a "peace deal" if the Palestinians are not involved.  Trump (and Kushner) took the easy way out simply for political expediency.  Knowing Kushner, there was probably some personal financial benefit.  So in essence, Kerry was right.    

 

[But though Trump described the agreements as peace deals, the reaction from Palestinians was a stark reminder that the agreements are not seen as such by many in the region.]

[The pacts have been criticized by Iran, Turkey and Qatar. The biggest Gulf power, Saudi Arabia, has remained silent, leading to speculation that the kingdom quietly approves of the agreements but is reluctant to openly support them.]

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/progress-not-peace-breaking-down-trump-brokered-deals-between-israel-n1240298

 

 

I posted that I wanted to use an off-topic example with no intention of going off topic.  You won't draw me in.

3 hours ago, Damual Travesty said:

Even at snopes they quote it like this:

 

Stone: I don’t want to overplay the facts here, but if someone will study the president’s authority in the Insurrection Act and in his ability to apply — impose — martial law if there’s widespread [inaudible, might be “cheating”], he will have the authority to arrest Mark Zuckerberg, to arrest Tim Cook, to arrest the Clintons, to arrest anybody else who can be proven to be involved in illegal activity. 

 

Sounds like he is saying that someone should study if the President has Authority under the Insurrection act to impose martial law IF there is widespread [sic] cheating, to arrest anyone PROVED involved in illegal activity.

 

From Roger Stone legal expert in a call in show. Are you worried about this seriously???

 

So let's get this straight - HRC saying Biden should wait until his loss in confirmed before conceding is somehow very bad, and dangerous to boot. But Stone (regardless of your waffle) musing about Trump declaring martial law on some trumped up charges, is perfectly legit. About as hypocritical as expected.

 

Oh, and I wasn't 'worried' about Stone's comments. I brought them up to show that people on either side say things, and the reactions are based totally on partisanship. Thanks for helping me make that point.

13 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

Russiagate was the attempt to prevent a Trump presidency or, in the event he became President, remove him from office.  A rejection of the 2016 election results.

 

The Mueller probe was that portion of Russiagate to be used as the vehicle to remove Trump from office.

 

The sham impeachment was another attempt to remedy the results of the 2016 election.

 

These are some of the events which were efforts to overturn the will of the people and remove a sitting president because the Dems rejected the 2016 election results.

 

These are not my opinions.  These events actually transpired.

There is an obvious difference between someone directly disputing election results and an assertion that certain actions were undertaken due to the unstated motive of disputing election results. The thing about imputing unstated motives is that there's no way of proving or disproving such an assertion. All it does is further establish proof of your political biases.

33 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

And in Trump supporters' minds, Trump can do no wrong.

Could be that many are dyslectic, and actually read the thread title as cheered.

10 hours ago, Nout said:

Disgraceful

Free speech~no political correctness~it's the new normal~thank the orange one

28 minutes ago, Morch said:

4 hours ago, Tippaporn said:

For four years the Dems have rejected the results of the 2016 election (while simultaneously and hypocritically aghast that Trump would even ponder it) and have done everything within their power, legally or illegally, to subvert that election result.  Four years on and their entire campaign for the 2020 election is focused on one issue and one issue only . . . to remove President Trump.

 

Anyone actually believing that they would be voting for Biden are deluded.  For it will be President Harris in very short order.  Under no circumstances would I want a Harris presidency.

 

Vox - Kamala Harris’s decline in the polls, explained

 

She had a single high point during her candidacy yet within 5 months of that she was polling in single digits and dropped out.  The Dems rejected her then but will vote for her now.  Why?  Doesn't matter who it as as long as they can remove President Trump.

Only in Trump supporters' minds does the opposition not rolling over equate with 'rejected the results'. In effect, the results were acknowledged, accepted and the transition of power executed. The same things Trump now refuses to commit to, by the way.

 

Only in Trump supporters minds the President and his administration are immune from criticism, censure or investigations. Granted, when the Republicans were in a position to do so, no issues from the usual suspects (for reference, look up Benghazi). As for Democrats doing something illegal - do tell, or better yet, don't - if all you've got is the usual mumbo jumbo made out of insinuations and conspiracy theories.

 

You could, of course, continue to ignore that the Democratic Party got a platform, and that it is publicly available (linked even on this topic, surely on previous ones). But even if this was just about Trump - it's enough for some.

 

The nonsense about Harris replacing Biden is another Trump campaign talking point, not supported by anything much. By the same reasoning one could posit Pence will take over from Trump.

 

As for Harris's support - is this another case where you trust polls and such when results fit your narrative?

Of course they had to formally acknowledge and accept it by executing the transition of power.  They had no choice.  Duh.

 

I can't speak for other Trump supporters but I've never objected to valid criticisms.  That doesn't mean I won't rail against unwarranted, baseless, or fabricated criticisms.  You might mistake the difference but I won't.

 

As to the Dem platform, granted it's published, I sincerely doubt Biden could recite even a portion of it.  I highly doubt he created and wrote the platform.  On the other hand Trump needs no teleprompter or even written notes to tell you exactly where he wants to take the country on any given issue.

 

Biden's losing it.  That's plain fact.  There are too many videos out there to post evidencing it.  We have evidence of Biden reading off the teleprompter and speaking the instructions.  We have multiple videos in which he completely loses his train of thought.  Don't know what to tell you if you don't want to acknowledge evidence that everyone has been witnessing with their own eyes.  You won't convince me to refute what my eyes are seeing.  Try someone else.

 

Given Biden's deterioration the Dems would most certainly pull the plug if he were to lose it on national security issues.  Harris would replace him.  How soon that would be would be anyone's guess but it depends on how rapid Biden's deterioration becomes.

 

I don't need to trust the polls that said Harris was polling in single digits.  She dropped out.  Whatever her true polling numbers were the fact that she dropped out is evidence enough that they had to have been dismal.  That's only common sense.  C'mon, man.

1 hour ago, spidermike007 said:

Utterly fascinating how the charlatan Master has taught his disciples how to distort truth, how to learn the art of deflection, and how to embrace dishonor. And the most fascinating part is most do not even see what they are doing, nor how they are behaving. Honor? What is that? 

You and the haters can deflect all you want 

 

1 hour ago, spidermike007 said:

Utterly fascinating how the charlatan Master has taught his disciples how to distort truth, how to learn the art of deflection, and how to embrace dishonor. And the most fascinating part is most do not even see what they are doing, nor how they are behaving. Honor? What is that? 

 

 webfact "The president has maintained a respectful demeanor in his remarks about Ginsburg since her death, but he has drawn criticism from Democrats for not honoring her wish, reportedly dictated in a statement to her granddaughter, that she be replaced by the next president".

This was the webfact I was quoting above!

Stop deflecting this fact

The Constitution doesn't give make a wish references in its text to dems and scj  especially on their death bed! The left would have you believe your President should appease these  ridiculous wishes .

The constitution says the office  nominates!

The tradition has been honored for centuries!  !

How many SCJ wishes on their  death bed  have been appeased  by passed president opposition party lol

If you got a problem like these disrespectful jeering hecklers, vote him out . Would you go to a wake and jeer publicly!   

Edited September 25, 20205 yr by riclag

18 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

Russiagate was the attempt to prevent a Trump presidency or, in the event he became President, remove him from office.  A rejection of the 2016 election results.

 

The Mueller probe was that portion of Russiagate to be used as the vehicle to remove Trump from office.

 

The sham impeachment was another attempt to remedy the results of the 2016 election.

 

These are some of the events which were efforts to overturn the will of the people and remove a sitting president because the Dems rejected the 2016 election results.

 

These are not my opinions.  These events actually transpired.

Whatever, another opinionated trump supporter rant. Anyone who 'likes' a post suggesting Soros funded the incident at Ginsburg's casket, IMO, lives in the realm of conspiracies; similar to trump so I suppose no surprise.

28 minutes ago, Morch said:

Well, you don't believe anything it Trump's fault anyway, so no biggy.

I've said it before, I don't agree with everything Trump does and I have my own criticisms.  I won't air them here because I have no intention of feeding the trolls.  But what you say is false.

12 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

As to the Dem platform, granted it's published, I sincerely doubt Biden could recite even a portion of it.  I highly doubt he created and wrote the platform.  On the other hand Trump needs no teleprompter or even written notes to tell you exactly where he wants to take the country on any given issue.

Back to the Future: Trump’s History of Promising a Health Plan That Never Comes

https://khn.org/news/back-to-the-future-trumps-history-of-promising-a-health-plan-that-never-comes/

10 hours ago, Puchaiyank said:

Well it was good to see the rioters, looters, and business burners take time off to be disrespectful to RBG and the POTUS...

 

Civility, reverence, and politeness never go out of style when honoring the dead...classless bunch of morons...

 

These ignorant domestic terrorists would run the country into the ground...they have no clue!

Very funny to cite disrespect of the Chief disrespect whose words are well documented and known the world over. Nam, we don't need to choose attending one event or another, you see, there are millions of us discussed with this man. Either the citizens will vote en masse to throw him and his ilk out or we have lost the hope and promise that citizens can govern themselves.

2 hours ago, Taco said:

That was great!   Absolutely made my boring quarantine day.  Trump deserves much worse for what he has done to our country.  I assume he will deservedly be treated like this often when he is in public after he IS voted out and visiting court every day dealing with the 100's of lawsuits currently filed against him.  

 

I had my absentee ballot printed out today and can't wait to drop it off at the embassy first day out of quarantine. 

I bit the bullet and sent my Absentee Ballot by DHL. It has been confirmed as being received by my County Court Clerk in Kentucky.

14 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

I've said it before, I don't agree with everything Trump does and I have my own criticisms.  I won't air them here because I have no intention of feeding the trolls.  But what you say is false.

Trump Suffers Another Loss in the TikTok Showdown With China

 

The deal he’s blessed doesn’t meet his demands and gives Beijing plenty to be happy about.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-09-24/china-clear-winner-in-trump-s-tiktok-showdown-with-china

54 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

It was just questioned. You have no reply. You do not even have a half-reasonable explanation how or why the opposition acting as opposition implies not accepting results. That's a nice deflection from the fact that Trump himself refuses to commit.

You'll find it at the top of the page.

10 hours ago, Damual Travesty said:

Above is the last paragraph in the article. About sums it up perfectly. But for one thing. This last wish was the result of her not retiring after Obama, in the hopes that Hillary would become President, and she would then step down giving her the Supreme Court pick. Hillary lost. So - she remained on the Court hoping she would outlast Trump. She did not. Supreme Court Justices do not get to pick their successor, a fact that RBG obviously new very well. To hurl insult at the President of the United States while he pays his respects? Disgusting absolutely disgusting. Anything for power it seems.

RBG wish was only that a choice not be made before the election. Rather consistent with the Republican stance when President Obama nominates Merrick Garland whose nomination Mitch  McConnell (R-KY) refused to allow to be brought to the Senate.

I agree it is indecent to disturb mourners. But I have no problem with disturbing someone who is in the inside jumping with joy.

39 minutes ago, plentyofnuttin said:

55 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

Russiagate was the attempt to prevent a Trump presidency or, in the event he became President, remove him from office.  A rejection of the 2016 election results.

 

The Mueller probe was that portion of Russiagate to be used as the vehicle to remove Trump from office.

 

The sham impeachment was another attempt to remedy the results of the 2016 election.

 

These are some of the events which were efforts to overturn the will of the people and remove a sitting president because the Dems rejected the 2016 election results.

 

These are not my opinions.  These events actually transpired.

There is an obvious difference between someone directly disputing election results and an assertion that certain actions were undertaken due to the unstated motive of disputing election results. The thing about imputing unstated motives is that there's no way of proving or disproving such an assertion. All it does is further establish proof of your political biases.

In this particular case it has never been a secret that the Dems desired to oust Trump since before the inauguration.  All of their actions are congruent with their desire.  Perhaps Durham will provide the ultimate proof.  Until then the obvious cannot be explained otherwise.  Logic does not necessarily follow that my conclusions are proof of political bias.  Certainly not in this case.

 

Washington Times - 'Impeach Trump' preceded even Trump's nomination

3 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

In this particular case it has never been a secret that the Dems desired to oust Trump since before the inauguration.  All of their actions are congruent with their desire.  Perhaps Durham will provide the ultimate proof.  Until then the obvious cannot be explained otherwise.  Logic does not necessarily follow that my conclusions are proof of political bias.  Certainly not in this case.

 

Washington Times - 'Impeach Trump' preceded even Trump's nomination

The obvious is that Trump called this upon himself with his actions, inactions, lack of respect for the law, wannabee dictatorship, lack of morals, etc.

41 minutes ago, plentyofnuttin said:

56 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

<snip>

 

As to the Dem platform, granted it's published, I sincerely doubt Biden could recite even a portion of it.  I highly doubt he created and wrote the platform.  On the other hand Trump needs no teleprompter or even written notes to tell you exactly where he wants to take the country on any given issue.

 

<snip>

Back to the Future: Trump’s History of Promising a Health Plan That Never Comes

https://khn.org/news/back-to-the-future-trumps-history-of-promising-a-health-plan-that-never-comes/

So what.  Are you suggesting that all previous presidents fulfilled every one of their campaign promises?  That would be a ludicrous claim, not to mention easily debunked.

38 minutes ago, plentyofnuttin said:

56 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

I've said it before, I don't agree with everything Trump does and I have my own criticisms.  I won't air them here because I have no intention of feeding the trolls.  But what you say is false.

Trump Suffers Another Loss in the TikTok Showdown With China

 

The deal he’s blessed doesn’t meet his demands and gives Beijing plenty to be happy about.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-09-24/china-clear-winner-in-trump-s-tiktok-showdown-with-china

Again, so what.  Are you suggesting that all previous presidents were able to achieve each and every one of their goals?

12 minutes ago, stevenl said:

16 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

In this particular case it has never been a secret that the Dems desired to oust Trump since before the inauguration.  All of their actions are congruent with their desire.  Perhaps Durham will provide the ultimate proof.  Until then the obvious cannot be explained otherwise.  Logic does not necessarily follow that my conclusions are proof of political bias.  Certainly not in this case.

 

Washington Times - 'Impeach Trump' preceded even Trump's nomination

The obvious is that Trump called this upon himself with his actions, inactions, lack of respect for the law, wannabee dictatorship, lack of morals, etc.

Not only is it not obvious it's illogical.  The calls for his impeachment, as per the article, preceded his nomination.  How could Trump have called it upon himself before he even started?

6 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

So what.  Are you suggesting that all previous presidents fulfilled every one of their campaign promises?  That would be a ludicrous claim, not to mention easily debunked.

There is a difference between having a history of not fulfilled promises and not fulfilling all promises.

Edited September 25, 20205 yr by stevenl

28 minutes ago, stevenl said:

I agree it is indecent to disturb mourners. But I have no problem with disturbing someone who is in the inside jumping with joy.

The statement is not reality based.  It's a projection of your beliefs.

1 hour ago, simple1 said:

1 hour ago, Tippaporn said:

Russiagate was the attempt to prevent a Trump presidency or, in the event he became President, remove him from office.  A rejection of the 2016 election results.

 

The Mueller probe was that portion of Russiagate to be used as the vehicle to remove Trump from office.

 

The sham impeachment was another attempt to remedy the results of the 2016 election.

 

These are some of the events which were efforts to overturn the will of the people and remove a sitting president because the Dems rejected the 2016 election results.

 

These are not my opinions.  These events actually transpired.

Whatever, another opinionated trump supporter rant. Anyone who 'likes' a post suggesting Soros funded the incident at Ginsburg's casket, IMO, lives in the realm of conspiracies; similar to trump so I suppose no surprise.

LOL.  So you have no argument and are reduced to character assassination as your final reply.  Neither am I surprised.

35 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

In this particular case it has never been a secret that the Dems desired to oust Trump since before the inauguration.  All of their actions are congruent with their desire.  Perhaps Durham will provide the ultimate proof.  Until then the obvious cannot be explained otherwise.  Logic does not necessarily follow that my conclusions are proof of political bias.  Certainly not in this case.

 

Washington Times - 'Impeach Trump' preceded even Trump's nomination

Funny. One of the links from that article says this:

"Donald Trump and other embattled Republican candidates are resorting to a particularly bizarre and dangerous tactic in the closing days of the campaign — warning that they may well seek to impeach Hillary Clinton if she wins, or, short of that, tie her up with endless investigations and other delaying tactics."

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/04/opinion/donald-trumps-impeachment-threat.html

I think you're projecting.

As for the rest, just speculative articles from journalists. No quotes from Democratic politicians re impeachment. 

 

26 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

So what.  Are you suggesting that all previous presidents fulfilled every one of their campaign promises?  That would be a ludicrous claim, not to mention easily debunked.

But you said we know where Trump stands on the issues. We don't on this one. ANd it wasn't just a campaign. He has repeatedly promised to come up with a health insurance plan. He has repeatedly claimed that he already has one. The last time he made such a promise he claimed that it would be ready in 2 weeks. The 2 weeks was up august 1, 2020. So no, not just a campaign promise but a lie repeatedly told.

9 minutes ago, plentyofnuttin said:

50 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

In this particular case it has never been a secret that the Dems desired to oust Trump since before the inauguration.  All of their actions are congruent with their desire.  Perhaps Durham will provide the ultimate proof.  Until then the obvious cannot be explained otherwise.  Logic does not necessarily follow that my conclusions are proof of political bias.  Certainly not in this case.

 

Washington Times - 'Impeach Trump' preceded even Trump's nomination

Funny. One of the links from that article says this:

"Donald Trump and other embattled Republican candidates are resorting to a particularly bizarre and dangerous tactic in the closing days of the campaign — warning that they may well seek to impeach Hillary Clinton if she wins, or, short of that, tie her up with endless investigations and other delaying tactics."

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/04/opinion/donald-trumps-impeachment-threat.html

I think you're projecting.

As for the rest, just speculative articles from journalists. No quotes from Democratic politicians re impeachment. 

A New York Times opinion piece and you're treating it as fact?

5 hours ago, CorpusChristie said:

OK, so you think that its perfectly acceptable for people to voice their opinion at funerals .

So, you would have had no objections had Trump voiced his opinion at the funeral and told everyone there why they should vote for him at the top of his voice ?

 

So you hold Trump to the same standards of people who by your apparent reckoning can be equated with arsonists, rioters, cop killers?

I simply long for the day when I can listen to the news or scan social media without the name Trump appearing everywhere and I mean any of the Trump clan of criminals.