FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > Trump & Nato
Trump & Nato
Jump to: Newest in thread
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
""Donald Trump just asked Russia to attack our NATO allies. Donald Trump is asking for World War III" I'm seeing plenty of tweets similar to above. Are people actually that stupid? Or deaf maybe?" It's an alarmist paraphrase of a reckless statement. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What did he actually say? Feeling lazy. "He was recalling an old story from a Nato meeting. He said the US wouldn't protect any member who didn't pay and would encourage others (namely, Russia) to do whatever the hell they want. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What did he actually say? Feeling lazy. "He told a story which is almost certainly a lie about how he stood up and told the leaders of other NATO countries that the USA wouldn’t come to their aid aid if they didn’t pay their share of NATO funding. “He was my biggest fan” “They couldn’t believe my answer” “one of the presidents of a very big country” and all the usual Trumpian nonsense. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"People want to hate him, most will see through the headlines and understand his somewhat clumsy message for what it was. I guess this is what people want, talk that is not word perfect and more down to earth." I think they’d prefer competence. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"People want to hate him, most will see through the headlines and understand his somewhat clumsy message for what it was. I guess this is what people want, talk that is not word perfect and more down to earth. I think they’d prefer competence." You will have no say in that, it is what the voting people of the US want. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Of course member nations should pay their dues but as usual it's what he said will be perceived and whilst it's not going to happen trump should keep such discussions between leaders, but whilst he's pandering to his base trying to look strong that's unlikely at present.. Putin will be happy as it's more potential division to exploit but ironically his own actions of two year's ago that will out of necessity increase defense spending in NATO and other countries.." This could be a moment that Nato members put their hands in their pockets and started paying the correct %, many don't. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"People want to hate him, most will see through the headlines and understand his somewhat clumsy message for what it was. I guess this is what people want, talk that is not word perfect and more down to earth. I think they’d prefer competence. You will have no say in that, it is what the voting people of the US want." Oh absolutely, if they’d prefer the big grandstanding fella who tells talk tales, that’s their business. I guess we’ll find out later this year. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"People want to hate him, most will see through the headlines and understand his somewhat clumsy message for what it was. I guess this is what people want, talk that is not word perfect and more down to earth. I think they’d prefer competence. You will have no say in that, it is what the voting people of the US want. Oh absolutely, if they’d prefer the big grandstanding fella who tells talk tales, that’s their business. I guess we’ll find out later this year. " I'm looking forward to it | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"People want to hate him, most will see through the headlines and understand his somewhat clumsy message for what it was. I guess this is what people want, talk that is not word perfect and more down to earth. I think they’d prefer competence. You will have no say in that, it is what the voting people of the US want. Oh absolutely, if they’d prefer the big grandstanding fella who tells talk tales, that’s their business. I guess we’ll find out later this year. I'm looking forward to it" I wonder if he loses, will he accept it this time?  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"People want to hate him, most will see through the headlines and understand his somewhat clumsy message for what it was. I guess this is what people want, talk that is not word perfect and more down to earth. I think they’d prefer competence. You will have no say in that, it is what the voting people of the US want. Oh absolutely, if they’d prefer the big grandstanding fella who tells talk tales, that’s their business. I guess we’ll find out later this year. I'm looking forward to it I wonder if he loses, will he accept it this time? "He will accept it but you might hear him call for a second vote, the other side lied and so forth for at least 8 years  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"People want to hate him, most will see through the headlines and understand his somewhat clumsy message for what it was. I guess this is what people want, talk that is not word perfect and more down to earth. I think they’d prefer competence. You will have no say in that, it is what the voting people of the US want. Oh absolutely, if they’d prefer the big grandstanding fella who tells talk tales, that’s their business. I guess we’ll find out later this year. I'm looking forward to it I wonder if he loses, will he accept it this time?
He will accept it but you might hear him call for a second vote, the other side lied and so forth for at least 8 years "Well so far he’s 0 for 1 on accepting outcomes, and 1 for 1 on inciting riots  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"“Trump is a twat!” Thanks for coming to my TED Talk." He’s a great guy. Great guy. Probably the best guy. That’s what some would say, maybe not me. Well maybe me. But great guy. Definitely good, great guy. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
""Donald Trump just asked Russia to attack our NATO allies. Donald Trump is asking for World War III" I'm seeing plenty of tweets similar to above. Are people actually that stupid? Or deaf maybe?" Could Mr trump be sending out a dare to Mr putin.  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"People want to hate him, most will see through the headlines and understand his somewhat clumsy message for what it was. I guess this is what people want, talk that is not word perfect and more down to earth. I think they’d prefer competence. You will have no say in that, it is what the voting people of the US want. Oh absolutely, if they’d prefer the big grandstanding fella who tells talk tales, that’s their business. I guess we’ll find out later this year. I'm looking forward to it I wonder if he loses, will he accept it this time?
He will accept it but you might hear him call for a second vote, the other side lied and so forth for at least 8 years
Well so far he’s 0 for 1 on accepting outcomes, and 1 for 1 on inciting riots "I think it is 0 for 1 and 0 for 1 respectively. He was acquitted of all charges, although I think they have tried to open the door on a civil case. You share the same stats, there you go you have something in common | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
""Donald Trump just asked Russia to attack our NATO allies. Donald Trump is asking for World War III" I'm seeing plenty of tweets similar to above. Are people actually that stupid? Or deaf maybe?" Sort of… ish (and I am not defending him with what I am about to say) What he said was that he would not support a fellow NATO country from invasion “if that country does not adhere to minimum defence spending requirements” Now … actually all the Baltic countries do… Poland does.. the uk does (although they fudge the figures a bit by including money spent on military pensions) It use to be a lot of countries that didn’t spend the minimum 2% of GDP.. now it’s just a handful! Trump would like to pull the US out of NATO, but after the last time when he mused on that, the US congress have now put in by law that a president can not unilaterally pull the US out of NATO.. Still… it was a foolish thing to say…. The other thing that came out of that speech was he attacked Nikki Haley again ask why her husband isn’t campaigning with her or at any of her speeches? He has a very good reason…. He is actually on a military deployment overseas in Africa at the moment!!! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
""Donald Trump just asked Russia to attack our NATO allies. Donald Trump is asking for World War III" I'm seeing plenty of tweets similar to above. Are people actually that stupid? Or deaf maybe? Sort of… ish (and I am not defending him with what I am about to say) What he said was that he would not support a fellow NATO country from invasion “if that country does not adhere to minimum defence spending requirements” Now … actually all the Baltic countries do… Poland does.. the uk does (although they fudge the figures a bit by including money spent on military pensions) It use to be a lot of countries that didn’t spend the minimum 2% of GDP.. now it’s just a handful! Trump would like to pull the US out of NATO, but after the last time when he mused on that, the US congress have now put in by law that a president can not unilaterally pull the US out of NATO.. Still… it was a foolish thing to say…. The other thing that came out of that speech was he attacked Nikki Haley again ask why her husband isn’t campaigning with her or at any of her speeches? He has a very good reason…. He is actually on a military deployment overseas in Africa at the moment!!! " It was a foolish thing to say, whether the story was real or not, those things should stay behind closed doors. I was more interested in the driver I've seen today, these same people wonder why people laugh at them. The husband thing again, has been made a massive deal of, he's on deployment, end of conversation. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
""Donald Trump just asked Russia to attack our NATO allies. Donald Trump is asking for World War III" I'm seeing plenty of tweets similar to above. Are people actually that stupid? Or deaf maybe? Sort of… ish (and I am not defending him with what I am about to say) What he said was that he would not support a fellow NATO country from invasion “if that country does not adhere to minimum defence spending requirements” Now … actually all the Baltic countries do… Poland does.. the uk does (although they fudge the figures a bit by including money spent on military pensions) It use to be a lot of countries that didn’t spend the minimum 2% of GDP.. now it’s just a handful! Trump would like to pull the US out of NATO, but after the last time when he mused on that, the US congress have now put in by law that a president can not unilaterally pull the US out of NATO.. Still… it was a foolish thing to say…. The other thing that came out of that speech was he attacked Nikki Haley again ask why her husband isn’t campaigning with her or at any of her speeches? He has a very good reason…. He is actually on a military deployment overseas in Africa at the moment!!! It was a foolish thing to say, whether the story was real or not, those things should stay behind closed doors. I was more interested in the driver I've seen today, these same people wonder why people laugh at them. The husband thing again, has been made a massive deal of, he's on deployment, end of conversation. " It’s only such a big thing because he has a record of disrespecting the military.. from attacks on individuals and generals, he claiming to know more about the military than them … and famously, him not wanting to go to a WW1 cemetery in France during the 100 years anniversary because “it would get his hair wet!” | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
""Donald Trump just asked Russia to attack our NATO allies. Donald Trump is asking for World War III" I'm seeing plenty of tweets similar to above. Are people actually that stupid? Or deaf maybe? Sort of… ish (and I am not defending him with what I am about to say) What he said was that he would not support a fellow NATO country from invasion “if that country does not adhere to minimum defence spending requirements” Now … actually all the Baltic countries do… Poland does.. the uk does (although they fudge the figures a bit by including money spent on military pensions) It use to be a lot of countries that didn’t spend the minimum 2% of GDP.. now it’s just a handful! Trump would like to pull the US out of NATO, but after the last time when he mused on that, the US congress have now put in by law that a president can not unilaterally pull the US out of NATO.. Still… it was a foolish thing to say…. The other thing that came out of that speech was he attacked Nikki Haley again ask why her husband isn’t campaigning with her or at any of her speeches? He has a very good reason…. He is actually on a military deployment overseas in Africa at the moment!!! It was a foolish thing to say, whether the story was real or not, those things should stay behind closed doors. I was more interested in the driver I've seen today, these same people wonder why people laugh at them. The husband thing again, has been made a massive deal of, he's on deployment, end of conversation. It’s only such a big thing because he has a record of disrespecting the military.. from attacks on individuals and generals, he claiming to know more about the military than them … and famously, him not wanting to go to a WW1 cemetery in France during the 100 years anniversary because “it would get his hair wet!” " I’m assuming he took it to France? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
""Donald Trump just asked Russia to attack our NATO allies. Donald Trump is asking for World War III" I'm seeing plenty of tweets similar to above. Are people actually that stupid? Or deaf maybe? Sort of… ish (and I am not defending him with what I am about to say) What he said was that he would not support a fellow NATO country from invasion “if that country does not adhere to minimum defence spending requirements” Now … actually all the Baltic countries do… Poland does.. the uk does (although they fudge the figures a bit by including money spent on military pensions) It use to be a lot of countries that didn’t spend the minimum 2% of GDP.. now it’s just a handful! Trump would like to pull the US out of NATO, but after the last time when he mused on that, the US congress have now put in by law that a president can not unilaterally pull the US out of NATO.. Still… it was a foolish thing to say…. The other thing that came out of that speech was he attacked Nikki Haley again ask why her husband isn’t campaigning with her or at any of her speeches? He has a very good reason…. He is actually on a military deployment overseas in Africa at the moment!!! It was a foolish thing to say, whether the story was real or not, those things should stay behind closed doors. I was more interested in the driver I've seen today, these same people wonder why people laugh at them. The husband thing again, has been made a massive deal of, he's on deployment, end of conversation. It’s only such a big thing because he has a record of disrespecting the military.. from attacks on individuals and generals, he claiming to know more about the military than them … and famously, him not wanting to go to a WW1 cemetery in France during the 100 years anniversary because “it would get his hair wet!” " He could always have left his hair in the car  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The interesting thing about this thread is that no one commented on what Europe should do. It seems to me that at some point Europe has to wake up to the reality that the US is no longer a viable security partner. The most uncomfortable thing about Trump is that he is right - the Europeans have abdicated responsibility for their security. This should be a massive wake up call to Europe and they need to invest in their own security. " This is very true. It's also true that several European countries have increased their defence spending by quite a bit but only since they are themselves suddenly feeling vulnerable since Russia invaded Ukraine | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The interesting thing about this thread is that no one commented on what Europe should do. It seems to me that at some point Europe has to wake up to the reality that the US is no longer a viable security partner. The most uncomfortable thing about Trump is that he is right - the Europeans have abdicated responsibility for their security. This should be a massive wake up call to Europe and they need to invest in their own security. This is very true. It's also true that several European countries have increased their defence spending by quite a bit but only since they are themselves suddenly feeling vulnerable since Russia invaded Ukraine" My only point is that the US _might_ not be there when needed. It probably will be but if you cannot 100% rely on that guarantee and your survival is at stake then you need to find alternative means to look after yourself. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Lobbying people to spend increasing amounts on ‘defence’ isn’t a good place to find yourself (though tbf it does create employment, which is obviously a good thing). The fetishisation of military power is not something to be proud of, regardless of what flag flies above it" Military force is a deterrent, it is not a fetishisation of power unless it comes out in discussion by people virtue signalling their superior view point of the world, without really caring about the safety of their fellow citizens. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Lobbying people to spend increasing amounts on ‘defence’ isn’t a good place to find yourself (though tbf it does create employment, which is obviously a good thing). The fetishisation of military power is not something to be proud of, regardless of what flag flies above it Military force is a deterrent, it is not a fetishisation of power unless it comes out in discussion by people virtue signalling their superior view point of the world, without really caring about the safety of their fellow citizens. " Hit the nail on the head.. We live in a dangerous world. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" He also publicly critised them at the time for buying so much Russian gas. He was mocked and ridiculed for this. Guess that turned out to be right as well.." Coincidence ? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Lobbying people to spend increasing amounts on ‘defence’ isn’t a good place to find yourself (though tbf it does create employment, which is obviously a good thing). The fetishisation of military power is not something to be proud of, regardless of what flag flies above it Military force is a deterrent, it is not a fetishisation of power unless it comes out in discussion by people virtue signalling their superior view point of the world, without really caring about the safety of their fellow citizens. " Military force is a deterrent, I agree. Military fetishisation isn’t simply the notion of having a military. You know when you see military parades in North Korea and so forth? Is that any different from having military flypasts at sporting events as we see in some western nations? What purpose does it serve? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Lobbying people to spend increasing amounts on ‘defence’ isn’t a good place to find yourself (though tbf it does create employment, which is obviously a good thing). The fetishisation of military power is not something to be proud of, regardless of what flag flies above it Military force is a deterrent, it is not a fetishisation of power unless it comes out in discussion by people virtue signalling their superior view point of the world, without really caring about the safety of their fellow citizens. Military force is a deterrent, I agree. Military fetishisation isn’t simply the notion of having a military. You know when you see military parades in North Korea and so forth? Is that any different from having military flypasts at sporting events as we see in some western nations? What purpose does it serve?" Awareness of tax spending, pride and recruitment requests in the West. Other countries such as N Korea, it is a show of a trained and ready force as per the deterrent. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"On the specific topic, surely we should ‘all’ be aiming to spend as little as possible on defence, right? That’s got to be among the goals of humanity? " No, it is the about having more than enough to defend against attack, and to also hit back. If you believe removing defensive capabilities is a must have, you are walking a one way road, on your own | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Lobbying people to spend increasing amounts on ‘defence’ isn’t a good place to find yourself (though tbf it does create employment, which is obviously a good thing). The fetishisation of military power is not something to be proud of, regardless of what flag flies above it Military force is a deterrent, it is not a fetishisation of power unless it comes out in discussion by people virtue signalling their superior view point of the world, without really caring about the safety of their fellow citizens. Military force is a deterrent, I agree. Military fetishisation isn’t simply the notion of having a military. You know when you see military parades in North Korea and so forth? Is that any different from having military flypasts at sporting events as we see in some western nations? What purpose does it serve?" The purpose they serve is propaganda. Both as a deterrent to other Nations and to incourage positive centement from the tax payers who's money could be spent on other meaningful things for society. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"On the specific topic, surely we should ‘all’ be aiming to spend as little as possible on defence, right? That’s got to be among the goals of humanity? " if we lived in a perfect world maybe, but we have never and will never live in a perfect world well not while humans are around anyway | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"On the specific topic, surely we should ‘all’ be aiming to spend as little as possible on defence, right? That’s got to be among the goals of humanity? No, it is the about having more than enough to defend against attack, and to also hit back. If you believe removing defensive capabilities is a must have, you are walking a one way road, on your own" Did I say removing military spending is a must have? You’re inventing things again, aren’t you? I’m a realist and accept military spending is a necessary evil - I just think that a better world is possible, one day. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Lobbying people to spend increasing amounts on ‘defence’ isn’t a good place to find yourself (though tbf it does create employment, which is obviously a good thing). The fetishisation of military power is not something to be proud of, regardless of what flag flies above it Military force is a deterrent, it is not a fetishisation of power unless it comes out in discussion by people virtue signalling their superior view point of the world, without really caring about the safety of their fellow citizens. Military force is a deterrent, I agree. Military fetishisation isn’t simply the notion of having a military. You know when you see military parades in North Korea and so forth? Is that any different from having military flypasts at sporting events as we see in some western nations? What purpose does it serve? Awareness of tax spending, pride and recruitment requests in the West. Other countries such as N Korea, it is a show of a trained and ready force as per the deterrent. " Oh. When the west wave their military might around it’s about pride. When others do it, it’s about force? You’re so naive. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Lobbying people to spend increasing amounts on ‘defence’ isn’t a good place to find yourself (though tbf it does create employment, which is obviously a good thing). The fetishisation of military power is not something to be proud of, regardless of what flag flies above it Military force is a deterrent, it is not a fetishisation of power unless it comes out in discussion by people virtue signalling their superior view point of the world, without really caring about the safety of their fellow citizens. Military force is a deterrent, I agree. Military fetishisation isn’t simply the notion of having a military. You know when you see military parades in North Korea and so forth? Is that any different from having military flypasts at sporting events as we see in some western nations? What purpose does it serve? Awareness of tax spending, pride and recruitment requests in the West. Other countries such as N Korea, it is a show of a trained and ready force as per the deterrent. Oh. When the west wave their military might around it’s about pride. When others do it, it’s about force? You’re so naive. " What is wrong with you comrade! Have I upset the view of the communist outliers who allow nobody in and parade their big missiles as a show of force every year as they conduct military ops? Lets call it pride too | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"On the specific topic, surely we should ‘all’ be aiming to spend as little as possible on defence, right? That’s got to be among the goals of humanity? No, it is the about having more than enough to defend against attack, and to also hit back. If you believe removing defensive capabilities is a must have, you are walking a one way road, on your own Did I say removing military spending is a must have? You’re inventing things again, aren’t you? I’m a realist and accept military spending is a necessary evil - I just think that a better world is possible, one day. " Or possibly word your comments clearer, it would help | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The interesting thing about this thread is that no one commented on what Europe should do. It seems to me that at some point Europe has to wake up to the reality that the US is no longer a viable security partner. The most uncomfortable thing about Trump is that he is right - the Europeans have abdicated responsibility for their security. This should be a massive wake up call to Europe and they need to invest in their own security. This is very true. It's also true that several European countries have increased their defence spending by quite a bit but only since they are themselves suddenly feeling vulnerable since Russia invaded Ukraine My only point is that the US _might_ not be there when needed. It probably will be but if you cannot 100% rely on that guarantee and your survival is at stake then you need to find alternative means to look after yourself." Absolutely agree European countries need to step up and build a credible defence. They are in a club that commits to defend each other but conveniently forget their commitment to the defence spending they are supposed spend. In other words they want the benefits of membership without paying the full cost of membership. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"People want to hate him, most will see through the headlines and understand his somewhat clumsy message for what it was. I guess this is what people want, talk that is not word perfect and more down to earth. I think they’d prefer competence." They can't prefer competence that much, they chose Biden | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"People want to hate him, most will see through the headlines and understand his somewhat clumsy message for what it was. I guess this is what people want, talk that is not word perfect and more down to earth. I think they’d prefer competence. They can't prefer competence that much, they chose Biden " It might be a ruse by Mr Biden and his team, the charges of the classified documents have been dropped recently due to age and incapacity, plus there are alleged claims Mr Biden is implicated in his sons business dealings, Are they setting a bar and precedent in antisipation, Mr Biden's persona has changed from top off his game to a bumbling man all if a sudden. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"People want to hate him, most will see through the headlines and understand his somewhat clumsy message for what it was. I guess this is what people want, talk that is not word perfect and more down to earth. I think they’d prefer competence. They can't prefer competence that much, they chose Biden It might be a ruse by Mr Biden and his team, the charges of the classified documents have been dropped recently due to age and incapacity, plus there are alleged claims Mr Biden is implicated in his sons business dealings, Are they setting a bar and precedent in antisipation, Mr Biden's persona has changed from top off his game to a bumbling man all if a sudden. " all of a sudden lol it was pretty clear to half of america and the majority of the world that the bloke was away with the faries even before he was elected, the only ones who thought he was of sound mind were the orange man bad gang | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What a choice the USA has between two bumbling old men who should be sitting by the sunny window!" Someone did some digging and they say Mr Biden has spent 40% of his presidency at his Delaware home or on vacation one of them is sunnying it up. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What a choice the USA has between two bumbling old men who should be sitting by the sunny window! Someone did some digging and they say Mr Biden has spent 40% of his presidency at his Delaware home or on vacation one of them is sunnying it up. "How much golf has he played?  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" It might be a ruse by Mr Biden and his team, the charges of the classified documents have been dropped recently due to age and incapacity, plus there are alleged claims Mr Biden is implicated in his sons business dealings, Are they setting a bar and precedent in antisipation, Mr Biden's persona has changed from top off his game to a bumbling man all if a sudden. " A) it was really unprofessional for the special counsel to put that in the report… and the report should only deal with legal matters B) the reason why there are no charges for Biden ( and Mike pence as well) is that they co-operated at every opportunity at the earliest possible opportunity and gave back any documents they should not have had C) they keep digging in Hunter Biden but even the republican led committee have admitted there is no unlawful link between him and his dad…. I love it when people talk about the classified documents case and make comments like the above because it shows that they have no understanding of what it is Jack smith was very smart in that trump has NOT been charged with taking the documents out of Washington… he is being charged with not giving documents back when notified he had them, obstructing in moving the documents around so that the authorities could not find them when searched, and showing them to people who have not gone the security clearances to see them | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What a choice the USA has between two bumbling old men who should be sitting by the sunny window! Someone did some digging and they say Mr Biden has spent 40% of his presidency at his Delaware home or on vacation one of them is sunnying it up. "His Delaware home… that would be really impressive if Delaware wasn’t next state up! Basically the distance between Washington and Wilmington in UK terms is the difference between London …….. and Leicester ! Anyway if you want something truly spectacularly hypocritical… trump, who spent time criticising Obama for spending too much time on a golf course whilst in office, spent more time on a golf course during his presidency in the first two months than Obama did in his entire 8 years….. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What a choice the USA has between two bumbling old men who should be sitting by the sunny window! Someone did some digging and they say Mr Biden has spent 40% of his presidency at his Delaware home or on vacation one of them is sunnying it up. "Someone did some digging or one of Elons fake AI accounts made it up ? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What a choice the USA has between two bumbling old men who should be sitting by the sunny window! Someone did some digging and they say Mr Biden has spent 40% of his presidency at his Delaware home or on vacation one of them is sunnying it up.
Someone did some digging or one of Elons fake AI accounts made it up ?"A research group in the usa did the digging, a youtube clip is out there. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Someone did some digging and they say Mr Biden has spent 40% of his presidency at his Delaware home or on vacation" A normal UK worker doing 40 hours a week for 45 weeks of the year will spend just 20.5% of their time working, If Biden is spending 60% of his time working, it's no wonder he looks so tired all the time. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Someone did some digging and they say Mr Biden has spent 40% of his presidency at his Delaware home or on vacation A normal UK worker doing 40 hours a week for 45 weeks of the year will spend just 20.5% of their time working, If Biden is spending 60% of his time working, it's no wonder he looks so tired all the time." I do love your posts
You’ve been quiet of late but back on form this week it seems. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What a choice the USA has between two bumbling old men who should be sitting by the sunny window! Someone did some digging and they say Mr Biden has spent 40% of his presidency at his Delaware home or on vacation one of them is sunnying it up.
His Delaware home… that would be really impressive if Delaware wasn’t next state up!
Basically the distance between Washington and Wilmington in UK terms is the difference between London …….. and Leicester !
Anyway if you want something truly spectacularly hypocritical… trump, who spent time criticising Obama for spending too much time on a golf course whilst in office, spent more time on a golf course during his presidency in the first two months than Obama did in his entire 8 years….. "Yeah but according to Trump he is a good golfer. A great golfer. Other people say it. They know how good I am. One of the best. It shows how good I am at other things too. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What a choice the USA has between two bumbling old men who should be sitting by the sunny window! Someone did some digging and they say Mr Biden has spent 40% of his presidency at his Delaware home or on vacation one of them is sunnying it up.
His Delaware home… that would be really impressive if Delaware wasn’t next state up!
Basically the distance between Washington and Wilmington in UK terms is the difference between London …….. and Leicester !
Anyway if you want something truly spectacularly hypocritical… trump, who spent time criticising Obama for spending too much time on a golf course whilst in office, spent more time on a golf course during his presidency in the first two months than Obama did in his entire 8 years…..
Yeah but according to Trump he is a good golfer. A great golfer. Other people say it. They know how good I am. One of the best. It shows how good I am at other things too. "Holding his wood? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What a choice the USA has between two bumbling old men who should be sitting by the sunny window! Someone did some digging and they say Mr Biden has spent 40% of his presidency at his Delaware home or on vacation one of them is sunnying it up.
His Delaware home… that would be really impressive if Delaware wasn’t next state up!
Basically the distance between Washington and Wilmington in UK terms is the difference between London …….. and Leicester !
Anyway if you want something truly spectacularly hypocritical… trump, who spent time criticising Obama for spending too much time on a golf course whilst in office, spent more time on a golf course during his presidency in the first two months than Obama did in his entire 8 years…..
Yeah but according to Trump he is a good golfer. A great golfer. Other people say it. They know how good I am. One of the best. It shows how good I am at other things too.
Holding his wood?
"Probably more like a putter  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What a choice the USA has between two bumbling old men who should be sitting by the sunny window! Someone did some digging and they say Mr Biden has spent 40% of his presidency at his Delaware home or on vacation one of them is sunnying it up.
His Delaware home… that would be really impressive if Delaware wasn’t next state up!
Basically the distance between Washington and Wilmington in UK terms is the difference between London …….. and Leicester !
Anyway if you want something truly spectacularly hypocritical… trump, who spent time criticising Obama for spending too much time on a golf course whilst in office, spent more time on a golf course during his presidency in the first two months than Obama did in his entire 8 years…..
Yeah but according to Trump he is a good golfer. A great golfer. Other people say it. They know how good I am. One of the best. It shows how good I am at other things too.
Holding his wood?
Probably more like a putter "Probably the bestest ever, ever putter for putting the puts in since he invented golf and better than little rocket boy.. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" It might be a ruse by Mr Biden and his team, the charges of the classified documents have been dropped recently due to age and incapacity, plus there are alleged claims Mr Biden is implicated in his sons business dealings, Are they setting a bar and precedent in antisipation, Mr Biden's persona has changed from top off his game to a bumbling man all if a sudden. A) it was really unprofessional for the special counsel to put that in the report… and the report should only deal with legal matters B) the reason why there are no charges for Biden ( and Mike pence as well) is that they co-operated at every opportunity at the earliest possible opportunity and gave back any documents they should not have had C) they keep digging in Hunter Biden but even the republican led committee have admitted there is no unlawful link between him and his dad…. I love it when people talk about the classified documents case and make comments like the above because it shows that they have no understanding of what it is Jack smith was very smart in that trump has NOT been charged with taking the documents out of Washington… he is being charged with not giving documents back when notified he had them, obstructing in moving the documents around so that the authorities could not find them when searched, and showing them to people who have not gone the security clearances to see them " So taking classified documents home and leaving them unsecured is fine as long as you give the classified documents back when you've been rumbled? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Anyone see any irony in trump arguing in the presidential immunity case that he should have the same power that do to exactly what Putin did to navalny Anyway.. anyone got a spare 355 million dollars on top of the 88 million he was owes e Jean Carroll Another interesting fact… did you know New York State charges 9% per day interest on appeals if they are unsuccessful from the point of the initial award " I read he can get a bond to put down pending an appeal but that'll cost him 10% of the fine, not small beer plus with his finances taking a hit he's either selling something or desperate for his base to chip in.. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Anyone see any irony in trump arguing in the presidential immunity case that he should have the same power that do to exactly what Putin did to navalny Anyway.. anyone got a spare 355 million dollars on top of the 88 million he was owes e Jean Carroll Another interesting fact… did you know New York State charges 9% per day interest on appeals if they are unsuccessful from the point of the initial award " im sure he will do an alex jones and not pay a penny, if he does win the election i hope no one who is cheering on trump getting prosecuted dont start moaning when he goes after his political rivals aswell | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Anyone see any irony in trump arguing in the presidential immunity case that he should have the same power that do to exactly what Putin did to navalny Anyway.. anyone got a spare 355 million dollars on top of the 88 million he was owes e Jean Carroll Another interesting fact… did you know New York State charges 9% per day interest on appeals if they are unsuccessful from the point of the initial award im sure he will do an alex jones and not pay a penny, if he does win the election i hope no one who is cheering on trump getting prosecuted dont start moaning when he goes after his political rivals aswell" Different outcome for him, Jones doesn't have a large albeit likely overinflated property portfolio that was at risk.. Trump goes bankrupt the state will still get it's dues in time plus there's the political perspective of how great and successful I am, oh no I'm bankrupt.. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Anyone see any irony in trump arguing in the presidential immunity case that he should have the same power that do to exactly what Putin did to navalny Anyway.. anyone got a spare 355 million dollars on top of the 88 million he was owes e Jean Carroll Another interesting fact… did you know New York State charges 9% per day interest on appeals if they are unsuccessful from the point of the initial award " Are these fines US normal, in terms of either amount or % of someones wealth? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" It might be a ruse by Mr Biden and his team, the charges of the classified documents have been dropped recently due to age and incapacity, plus there are alleged claims Mr Biden is implicated in his sons business dealings, Are they setting a bar and precedent in antisipation, Mr Biden's persona has changed from top off his game to a bumbling man all if a sudden. A) it was really unprofessional for the special counsel to put that in the report… and the report should only deal with legal matters B) the reason why there are no charges for Biden ( and Mike pence as well) is that they co-operated at every opportunity at the earliest possible opportunity and gave back any documents they should not have had C) they keep digging in Hunter Biden but even the republican led committee have admitted there is no unlawful link between him and his dad…. I love it when people talk about the classified documents case and make comments like the above because it shows that they have no understanding of what it is Jack smith was very smart in that trump has NOT been charged with taking the documents out of Washington… he is being charged with not giving documents back when notified he had them, obstructing in moving the documents around so that the authorities could not find them when searched, and showing them to people who have not gone the security clearances to see them So taking classified documents home and leaving them unsecured is fine as long as you give the classified documents back when you've been rumbled? " No….. but if they charge him with this, then it muddys the water because he is going to try and claim immunity by saying he took them as part of his duties in the role of him being president when a lot of the documents would never be taken out of a skiff for anyone Plus it means they can draw a clear line between Biden and pence, who when notified they had documents they should not have, cooperated and gave them back at the first available opportunity… and trump, who not only did not, but had to do two searches and deliberately moved stuff in attempting to make sure it could not be found … | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Are these fines US normal, in terms of either amount or % of someone’s wealth?" The % amount paid in interest per day if an appeal fails is absolutely normal, actually he may catch a break on the 355 million dollar fine because I think law changing where the interest paid per day if an appeal fails has gone down from 9% to 2% I know it’s definitely 9% per day on E Jean Carroll’s 88 million.. it may be 2% per day on the 355 million dollar New York State penalty The actual New York penalty is a big one because of the lower interest rates trump paid on large amounts of money because of the overinflated assets values given …. Engrossed earnings based on falsified valuations and accounting… | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" im sure he will do an alex jones and not pay a penny, if he does win the election i hope no one who is cheering on trump getting prosecuted dont start moaning when he goes after his political rivals aswell" He can’t in the E Jean Carroll case because she in effect would become a creditor … basically he claims to have so much in property value money that she would get a part of that… and it would be advisable for him to pay it quickly because whilst the debt is outstanding, it’s accruing 9% interest per day | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" It might be a ruse by Mr Biden and his team, the charges of the classified documents have been dropped recently due to age and incapacity, plus there are alleged claims Mr Biden is implicated in his sons business dealings, Are they setting a bar and precedent in antisipation, Mr Biden's persona has changed from top off his game to a bumbling man all if a sudden. A) it was really unprofessional for the special counsel to put that in the report… and the report should only deal with legal matters B) the reason why there are no charges for Biden ( and Mike pence as well) is that they co-operated at every opportunity at the earliest possible opportunity and gave back any documents they should not have had C) they keep digging in Hunter Biden but even the republican led committee have admitted there is no unlawful link between him and his dad…. I love it when people talk about the classified documents case and make comments like the above because it shows that they have no understanding of what it is Jack smith was very smart in that trump has NOT been charged with taking the documents out of Washington… he is being charged with not giving documents back when notified he had them, obstructing in moving the documents around so that the authorities could not find them when searched, and showing them to people who have not gone the security clearances to see them So taking classified documents home and leaving them unsecured is fine as long as you give the classified documents back when you've been rumbled? No….. but if they charge him with this, then it muddys the water because he is going to try and claim immunity by saying he took them as part of his duties in the role of him being president when a lot of the documents would never be taken out of a skiff for anyone Plus it means they can draw a clear line between Biden and pence, who when notified they had documents they should not have, cooperated and gave them back at the first available opportunity… and trump, who not only did not, but had to do two searches and deliberately moved stuff in attempting to make sure it could not be found …" So if Biden and Pence broke the law, why aren't they getting prosecuted? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" So if Biden and Pence broke the law, why aren't they getting prosecuted?" Because as soon as they were made aware they may have documents they should not have.. they gave them back at the earliest notification and fully co-operated with the investigation Trump didn’t.. signed a form to say he had given everything back when he did not.. and the moved documents from where he said they were to avoid them being found and given back | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" So if Biden and Pence broke the law, why aren't they getting prosecuted? Because as soon as they were made aware they may have documents they should not have.. they gave them back at the earliest notification and fully co-operated with the investigation Trump didn’t.. signed a form to say he had given everything back when he did not.. and the moved documents from where he said they were to avoid them being found and given back" So they got away with breaking the law. Funny how rules can be bent for certain people! Biden, Pence, and Trump should've been prosecuted. Let a jury decide if they are guilty. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So if Biden and Pence broke the law, why aren't they getting prosecuted?" "Because as soon as they were made aware they may have documents they should not have.. they gave them back at the earliest notification and fully co-operated with the investigation Trump didn’t.. signed a form to say he had given everything back when he did not.. and the moved documents from where he said they were to avoid them being found and given back" Surely the offence is possession of documents that they shouldn't have? It looks like both Biden and Trump are guilty. Yes, Biden probably should get a lesser sentence for his cooperation, but he's still guilty. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So if Biden and Pence broke the law, why aren't they getting prosecuted? Because as soon as they were made aware they may have documents they should not have.. they gave them back at the earliest notification and fully co-operated with the investigation Trump didn’t.. signed a form to say he had given everything back when he did not.. and the moved documents from where he said they were to avoid them being found and given back Surely the offence is possession of documents that they shouldn't have? It looks like both Biden and Trump are guilty. Yes, Biden probably should get a lesser sentence for his cooperation, but he's still guilty." You know Trump is guilty, and you have no problem calling it out. I know Trump is guilty, and I have no problem calling it out. Fabio knows Trump is guilty, and has no problem calling it out. You know Biden is guilty, and you have no problem calling it out. I know Biden is guilty, and I have no problem calling it out. Fabio knows Biden is guilty, but can't bring himself to say it! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So if Biden and Pence broke the law, why aren't they getting prosecuted? Because as soon as they were made aware they may have documents they should not have.. they gave them back at the earliest notification and fully co-operated with the investigation Trump didn’t.. signed a form to say he had given everything back when he did not.. and the moved documents from where he said they were to avoid them being found and given back Surely the offence is possession of documents that they shouldn't have? It looks like both Biden and Trump are guilty. Yes, Biden probably should get a lesser sentence for his cooperation, but he's still guilty. You know Trump is guilty, and you have no problem calling it out. I know Trump is guilty, and I have no problem calling it out. Fabio knows Trump is guilty, and has no problem calling it out. You know Biden is guilty, and you have no problem calling it out. I know Biden is guilty, and I have no problem calling it out. Fabio knows Biden is guilty, but can't bring himself to say it!" There are 2 things going on here 1) the sensitivity of the documents…… 2) the cooperation given….. If Biden and Mike pence the authorities said the documents were classified but not top secret or higher… Once both pence and Biden were made aware they may have documents they should not have under the presidential records act, both of them cooperated to the fullest extent and give back the documents at the earliest notification….. I know you want to lump them altogether because for trump it makes sense to muddy the waters… What trump had were top secret and classification above top secret documents, refused to give them back when notified but the presidential records office, then after one search where he claimed to have given back all of top secret and above documents it was found that he didn’t so they had to do a 2nd search and again sign that he had given back everything… in the meantime before he was given notification of search 2 happening… he decided to get people to move the documents so they would not be found ! Again trump, nor Biden, nor pence have been charged with taking documents ( whether you want to charge them all with that then that is a separate question) What trump has been charged with is the refusal to give back the documents, obstruction in deliberately moving documents around with the intent of not giving them back, and showing classified documents to people without the clearance needed! ( funny enough the people who would be able to confirm that were the five people in the room writing pences official biography who were there to interview trump!) They are not going to slap that charge on unless all 5 confirm what happened… because it then becomes he said she said… Even if you charge all 3 with the same general document thing, trump is still getting the most serious charges added on top! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"People want to hate him, most will see through the headlines and understand his somewhat clumsy message for what it was. I guess this is what people want, talk that is not word perfect and more down to earth. I think they’d prefer competence. They can't prefer competence that much, they chose Biden It might be a ruse by Mr Biden and his team, the charges of the classified documents have been dropped recently due to age and incapacity, plus there are alleged claims Mr Biden is implicated in his sons business dealings, Are they setting a bar and precedent in antisipation, Mr Biden's persona has changed from top off his game to a bumbling man all if a sudden. " Oh buddy is not going to like the latest juicy developments in the claims regarding the Biden being implicated in his son’s business details for influence part of the investigation… Anyway as part of the special prosecutor case and the bit that republicans were leaning into was a whistleblower claiming the “1023’s” (complaint and allegation forms) were ignored by the DOJ… Anyway…. “Whistleblower” apparently went missing for a bit… then was found! Special prosecutor has charged the whistleblower with giving the FBI false information and lying to FBI officials …. FBI are claiming the informant was fed the fake information and that he was fed the hunter Biden dirt by Russians intelligence officials…. And that he met with them as late as last December!!! Hmmmmm…….. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" So if Biden and Pence broke the law, why aren't they getting prosecuted? Because as soon as they were made aware they may have documents they should not have.. they gave them back at the earliest notification and fully co-operated with the investigation Trump didn’t.. signed a form to say he had given everything back when he did not.. and the moved documents from where he said they were to avoid them being found and given back So they got away with breaking the law. Funny how rules can be bent for certain people! Biden, Pence, and Trump should've been prosecuted. Let a jury decide if they are guilty." If I got caught speeding a little over the limit & held my hands up I might be lucky & get a slap on the wrist. If I got caught speeding a little over the limit then led the cop on a chase through busy streets at school kicking out time. Jumped out of the car when out of sight & said it wasn’t me while still holding the ignition key should I still expect a slap on the wrist? S | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"People want to hate him, most will see through the headlines and understand his somewhat clumsy message for what it was. I guess this is what people want, talk that is not word perfect and more down to earth. I think they’d prefer competence. They can't prefer competence that much, they chose Biden It might be a ruse by Mr Biden and his team, the charges of the classified documents have been dropped recently due to age and incapacity, plus there are alleged claims Mr Biden is implicated in his sons business dealings, Are they setting a bar and precedent in antisipation, Mr Biden's persona has changed from top off his game to a bumbling man all if a sudden. Oh buddy is not going to like the latest juicy developments in the claims regarding the Biden being implicated in his son’s business details for influence part of the investigation… Anyway as part of the special prosecutor case and the bit that republicans were leaning into was a whistleblower claiming the “1023’s” (complaint and allegation forms) were ignored by the DOJ… Anyway…. “Whistleblower” apparently went missing for a bit… then was found! Special prosecutor has charged the whistleblower with giving the FBI false information and lying to FBI officials …. FBI are claiming the informant was fed the fake information and that he was fed the hunter Biden dirt by Russians intelligence officials…. And that he met with them as late as last December!!! Hmmmmm…….. " I hope they take it serious as an act of hostile aggression towards president Biden now they have a script and actors drafted that Russia did it, it ain't no laughing matter attempting to bring down president Biden even thou Mr Putin supports president biden. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"People want to hate him, most will see through the headlines and understand his somewhat clumsy message for what it was. I guess this is what people want, talk that is not word perfect and more down to earth." Why would anybody want to "hate" Trump. What his clumsy message was is outlined below. Trump recounted what he said was a conversation with the "president of a big country". Perceived to be France, Spain or Germany by some. "Well sir, if we don't pay, and we're attacked by Russia - will you protect us?" Trump quoted the unnamed leader as saying. "I said: 'You didn't pay? You're delinquent?' He said:'Yes, let's say that happened.' No, I would not protect you. In fact, I would encourage them (Russia) to do whatever the hell they want. You gotta pay," Trump said. So, basically, if a NATO member does not meet what Trump sees as their fiscal responsibility then, should he become President he would not adhere to the USA's NATO commitment to defend member countries. The only saving grace is, historically, when he says someone said "sir" to him; he is about to lie. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"People want to hate him, most will see through the headlines and understand his somewhat clumsy message for what it was. I guess this is what people want, talk that is not word perfect and more down to earth. Why would anybody want to "hate" Trump. What his clumsy message was is outlined below. Trump recounted what he said was a conversation with the "president of a big country". Perceived to be France, Spain or Germany by some. "Well sir, if we don't pay, and we're attacked by Russia - will you protect us?" Trump quoted the unnamed leader as saying. "I said: 'You didn't pay? You're delinquent?' He said:'Yes, let's say that happened.' No, I would not protect you. In fact, I would encourage them (Russia) to do whatever the hell they want. You gotta pay," Trump said. So, basically, if a NATO member does not meet what Trump sees as their fiscal responsibility then, should he become President he would not adhere to the USA's NATO commitment to defend member countries. The only saving grace is, historically, when he says someone said "sir" to him; he is about to lie. " When it comes to the 2% gdp members fee, the USA 2% gdp is considerably more than other members, the russian threat is only coming from the east for every member expect the USA who has a western sea border between them and russia. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"People want to hate him, most will see through the headlines and understand his somewhat clumsy message for what it was. I guess this is what people want, talk that is not word perfect and more down to earth. Why would anybody want to "hate" Trump. What his clumsy message was is outlined below. Trump recounted what he said was a conversation with the "president of a big country". Perceived to be France, Spain or Germany by some. "Well sir, if we don't pay, and we're attacked by Russia - will you protect us?" Trump quoted the unnamed leader as saying. "I said: 'You didn't pay? You're delinquent?' He said:'Yes, let's say that happened.' No, I would not protect you. In fact, I would encourage them (Russia) to do whatever the hell they want. You gotta pay," Trump said. So, basically, if a NATO member does not meet what Trump sees as their fiscal responsibility then, should he become President he would not adhere to the USA's NATO commitment to defend member countries. The only saving grace is, historically, when he says someone said "sir" to him; he is about to lie. When it comes to the 2% gdp members fee, the USA 2% gdp is considerably more than other members, the russian threat is only coming from the east for every member expect the USA who has a western sea border between them and russia." May I draw your attention to a world map. The shortest distance between the USA and Russia is just 55 miles. One of the reasons the USA spends so much on defence is because they do very good business selling obsolete war equipment to the rest of the world. If other NATO countries are forced to spend more then the USA will, in a single stroke, reduce its own marketplace and increase competition in the arms market. Real politicians know this. Trump is either not capable of grasping that concept or is, more likely, looking to try and break up NATO to benefit his pupetmaster Putin. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"People want to hate him, most will see through the headlines and understand his somewhat clumsy message for what it was. I guess this is what people want, talk that is not word perfect and more down to earth. Why would anybody want to "hate" Trump. What his clumsy message was is outlined below. Trump recounted what he said was a conversation with the "president of a big country". Perceived to be France, Spain or Germany by some. "Well sir, if we don't pay, and we're attacked by Russia - will you protect us?" Trump quoted the unnamed leader as saying. "I said: 'You didn't pay? You're delinquent?' He said:'Yes, let's say that happened.' No, I would not protect you. In fact, I would encourage them (Russia) to do whatever the hell they want. You gotta pay," Trump said. So, basically, if a NATO member does not meet what Trump sees as their fiscal responsibility then, should he become President he would not adhere to the USA's NATO commitment to defend member countries. The only saving grace is, historically, when he says someone said "sir" to him; he is about to lie. When it comes to the 2% gdp members fee, the USA 2% gdp is considerably more than other members, the russian threat is only coming from the east for every member expect the USA who has a western sea border between them and russia. May I draw your attention to a world map. The shortest distance between the USA and Russia is just 55 miles. One of the reasons the USA spends so much on defence is because they do very good business selling obsolete war equipment to the rest of the world. If other NATO countries are forced to spend more then the USA will, in a single stroke, reduce its own marketplace and increase competition in the arms market. Real politicians know this. Trump is either not capable of grasping that concept or is, more likely, looking to try and break up NATO to benefit his pupetmaster Putin. " I dought very much Mr trump wants to break up NATO, he wants it strengthened with more spending by members, by asking members to pay up to strengthen nato against the threat is good for mr putin, which msm were you told that. He warned about the god damm gas, i guess that wss good for mr putin also. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"If Trump gets back into power he will cut all aid to Ukraine in the hopes the war will escalate to other European countries he sees himself as a patton type figure that will then save the world from Russia " Putin owns Trump so there will be no rescue coming  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"If Trump gets back into power he will cut all aid to Ukraine in the hopes the war will escalate to other European countries he sees himself as a patton type figure that will then save the world from Russia Putin owns Trump so there will be no rescue coming "Does he fuckaslike | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"People want to hate him, most will see through the headlines and understand his somewhat clumsy message for what it was. I guess this is what people want, talk that is not word perfect and more down to earth. Why would anybody want to "hate" Trump. What his clumsy message was is outlined below. Trump recounted what he said was a conversation with the "president of a big country". Perceived to be France, Spain or Germany by some. "Well sir, if we don't pay, and we're attacked by Russia - will you protect us?" Trump quoted the unnamed leader as saying. "I said: 'You didn't pay? You're delinquent?' He said:'Yes, let's say that happened.' No, I would not protect you. In fact, I would encourage them (Russia) to do whatever the hell they want. You gotta pay," Trump said. So, basically, if a NATO member does not meet what Trump sees as their fiscal responsibility then, should he become President he would not adhere to the USA's NATO commitment to defend member countries. The only saving grace is, historically, when he says someone said "sir" to him; he is about to lie. When it comes to the 2% gdp members fee, the USA 2% gdp is considerably more than other members, the russian threat is only coming from the east for every member expect the USA who has a western sea border between them and russia. May I draw your attention to a world map. The shortest distance between the USA and Russia is just 55 miles. One of the reasons the USA spends so much on defence is because they do very good business selling obsolete war equipment to the rest of the world. If other NATO countries are forced to spend more then the USA will, in a single stroke, reduce its own marketplace and increase competition in the arms market. Real politicians know this. Trump is either not capable of grasping that concept or is, more likely, looking to try and break up NATO to benefit his pupetmaster Putin. I dought very much Mr trump wants to break up NATO, he wants it strengthened with more spending by members, by asking members to pay up to strengthen nato against the threat is good for mr putin, which msm were you told that. He warned about the god damm gas, i guess that wss good for mr putin also. "Let us get real here. Donald J Trump is a narcissist and a sociopath. We have heard evidence from virtually everyone who knows him he is ONLY interested in what HE wants. His companies are in debt up to their corporate eyeballs to Deutsche Bank. He would never have got those loans unless Putin and his oligarch friends had deposited vast sums in the bank and guranteed his loans. Recent history shows Donald Trump WILL do Putin's bidding and worse of all there are far too many cult followers unwilling to open their eyes to the threat he proposes to stop him. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"People want to hate him, most will see through the headlines and understand his somewhat clumsy message for what it was. I guess this is what people want, talk that is not word perfect and more down to earth. Why would anybody want to "hate" Trump. What his clumsy message was is outlined below. Trump recounted what he said was a conversation with the "president of a big country". Perceived to be France, Spain or Germany by some. "Well sir, if we don't pay, and we're attacked by Russia - will you protect us?" Trump quoted the unnamed leader as saying. "I said: 'You didn't pay? You're delinquent?' He said:'Yes, let's say that happened.' No, I would not protect you. In fact, I would encourage them (Russia) to do whatever the hell they want. You gotta pay," Trump said. So, basically, if a NATO member does not meet what Trump sees as their fiscal responsibility then, should he become President he would not adhere to the USA's NATO commitment to defend member countries. The only saving grace is, historically, when he says someone said "sir" to him; he is about to lie. When it comes to the 2% gdp members fee, the USA 2% gdp is considerably more than other members, the russian threat is only coming from the east for every member expect the USA who has a western sea border between them and russia. May I draw your attention to a world map. The shortest distance between the USA and Russia is just 55 miles. One of the reasons the USA spends so much on defence is because they do very good business selling obsolete war equipment to the rest of the world. If other NATO countries are forced to spend more then the USA will, in a single stroke, reduce its own marketplace and increase competition in the arms market. Real politicians know this. Trump is either not capable of grasping that concept or is, more likely, looking to try and break up NATO to benefit his pupetmaster Putin. I dought very much Mr trump wants to break up NATO, he wants it strengthened with more spending by members, by asking members to pay up to strengthen nato against the threat is good for mr putin, which msm were you told that. He warned about the god damm gas, i guess that wss good for mr putin also.
Let us get real here. Donald J Trump is a narcissist and a sociopath. We have heard evidence from virtually everyone who knows him he is ONLY interested in what HE wants.
His companies are in debt up to their corporate eyeballs to Deutsche Bank. He would never have got those loans unless Putin and his oligarch friends had deposited vast sums in the bank and guranteed his loans.
Recent history shows Donald Trump WILL do Putin's bidding and worse of all there are far too many cult followers unwilling to open their eyes to the threat he proposes to stop him. "you better give all this evidence to the democrat party because everything they have tried so far seems to be falling apart, do the right thing and give them all this evidence of his law breaking, im sure they would be grateful | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"People want to hate him, most will see through the headlines and understand his somewhat clumsy message for what it was. I guess this is what people want, talk that is not word perfect and more down to earth. Why would anybody want to "hate" Trump. What his clumsy message was is outlined below. Trump recounted what he said was a conversation with the "president of a big country". Perceived to be France, Spain or Germany by some. "Well sir, if we don't pay, and we're attacked by Russia - will you protect us?" Trump quoted the unnamed leader as saying. "I said: 'You didn't pay? You're delinquent?' He said:'Yes, let's say that happened.' No, I would not protect you. In fact, I would encourage them (Russia) to do whatever the hell they want. You gotta pay," Trump said. So, basically, if a NATO member does not meet what Trump sees as their fiscal responsibility then, should he become President he would not adhere to the USA's NATO commitment to defend member countries. The only saving grace is, historically, when he says someone said "sir" to him; he is about to lie. When it comes to the 2% gdp members fee, the USA 2% gdp is considerably more than other members, the russian threat is only coming from the east for every member expect the USA who has a western sea border between them and russia. May I draw your attention to a world map. The shortest distance between the USA and Russia is just 55 miles. One of the reasons the USA spends so much on defence is because they do very good business selling obsolete war equipment to the rest of the world. If other NATO countries are forced to spend more then the USA will, in a single stroke, reduce its own marketplace and increase competition in the arms market. Real politicians know this. Trump is either not capable of grasping that concept or is, more likely, looking to try and break up NATO to benefit his pupetmaster Putin. I dought very much Mr trump wants to break up NATO, he wants it strengthened with more spending by members, by asking members to pay up to strengthen nato against the threat is good for mr putin, which msm were you told that. He warned about the god damm gas, i guess that wss good for mr putin also.
Let us get real here. Donald J Trump is a narcissist and a sociopath. We have heard evidence from virtually everyone who knows him he is ONLY interested in what HE wants.
His companies are in debt up to their corporate eyeballs to Deutsche Bank. He would never have got those loans unless Putin and his oligarch friends had deposited vast sums in the bank and guranteed his loans.
Recent history shows Donald Trump WILL do Putin's bidding and worse of all there are far too many cult followers unwilling to open their eyes to the threat he proposes to stop him. you better give all this evidence to the democrat party because everything they have tried so far seems to be falling apart, do the right thing and give them all this evidence of his law breaking, im sure they would be grateful "QED | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Recent history shows Donald Trump WILL do Putin's bidding ... " Can you give us an example of something that Trump has done because Putin asked him to? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"People want to hate him, most will see through the headlines and understand his somewhat clumsy message for what it was. I guess this is what people want, talk that is not word perfect and more down to earth. Why would anybody want to "hate" Trump. What his clumsy message was is outlined below. Trump recounted what he said was a conversation with the "president of a big country". Perceived to be France, Spain or Germany by some. "Well sir, if we don't pay, and we're attacked by Russia - will you protect us?" Trump quoted the unnamed leader as saying. "I said: 'You didn't pay? You're delinquent?' He said:'Yes, let's say that happened.' No, I would not protect you. In fact, I would encourage them (Russia) to do whatever the hell they want. You gotta pay," Trump said. So, basically, if a NATO member does not meet what Trump sees as their fiscal responsibility then, should he become President he would not adhere to the USA's NATO commitment to defend member countries. The only saving grace is, historically, when he says someone said "sir" to him; he is about to lie. When it comes to the 2% gdp members fee, the USA 2% gdp is considerably more than other members, the russian threat is only coming from the east for every member expect the USA who has a western sea border between them and russia. May I draw your attention to a world map. The shortest distance between the USA and Russia is just 55 miles. One of the reasons the USA spends so much on defence is because they do very good business selling obsolete war equipment to the rest of the world. If other NATO countries are forced to spend more then the USA will, in a single stroke, reduce its own marketplace and increase competition in the arms market. Real politicians know this. Trump is either not capable of grasping that concept or is, more likely, looking to try and break up NATO to benefit his pupetmaster Putin. I dought very much Mr trump wants to break up NATO, he wants it strengthened with more spending by members, by asking members to pay up to strengthen nato against the threat is good for mr putin, which msm were you told that. He warned about the god damm gas, i guess that wss good for mr putin also.
Let us get real here. Donald J Trump is a narcissist and a sociopath. We have heard evidence from virtually everyone who knows him he is ONLY interested in what HE wants.
His companies are in debt up to their corporate eyeballs to Deutsche Bank. He would never have got those loans unless Putin and his oligarch friends had deposited vast sums in the bank and guranteed his loans.
Recent history shows Donald Trump WILL do Putin's bidding and worse of all there are far too many cult followers unwilling to open their eyes to the threat he proposes to stop him. "Reminds me of a convo I had with a flat earther. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Recent history shows Donald Trump WILL do Putin's bidding ... Can you give us an example of something that Trump has done because Putin asked him to?" Well I can give you an example where is said out loud in public that he believed Vladimir Putin over his entire national security apparatus because he had “looked him into his eyes “ Is that good enough?….. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Recent history shows Donald Trump WILL do Putin's bidding ..." "Can you give us an example of something that Trump has done because Putin asked him to?" "Well I can give you an example where is said out loud in public that he believed Vladimir Putin over his entire national security apparatus because he had “looked him into his eyes “ Is that good enough?….." Errr, no. Partly because Trump didn't say those words, but mostly because Trump says lots of things that he doesn't follow through with. In this case Trump had been asked if he believed that Russia had meddled with his election, so obviously he's going to deny it. I'm sure the bloke that originally said it will have a much better example. He was so insistent. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Recent history shows Donald Trump WILL do Putin's bidding ... Can you give us an example of something that Trump has done because Putin asked him to? Well I can give you an example where is said out loud in public that he believed Vladimir Putin over his entire national security apparatus because he had “looked him into his eyes “ Is that good enough?….. Errr, no. Partly because Trump didn't say those words, but mostly because Trump says lots of things that he doesn't follow through with. In this case Trump had been asked if he believed that Russia had meddled with his election, so obviously he's going to deny it. I'm sure the bloke that originally said it will have a much better example. He was so insistent." Erm… you might want to look at the infamous Helsinki press conference where he was specifically asked by journalists if he was taking the words of Putin over his national security apparatus…. Anyway… Biden certainly wasn’t “sleepy joe!” Last night… that state of the union speech was a barn burner!! … I don’t think I have seen one as fierce as that in a long time!! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Recent history shows Donald Trump WILL do Putin's bidding ... Can you give us an example of something that Trump has done because Putin asked him to? Well I can give you an example where is said out loud in public that he believed Vladimir Putin over his entire national security apparatus because he had “looked him into his eyes “ Is that good enough?….. Errr, no. Partly because Trump didn't say those words, but mostly because Trump says lots of things that he doesn't follow through with. In this case Trump had been asked if he believed that Russia had meddled with his election, so obviously he's going to deny it. I'm sure the bloke that originally said it will have a much better example. He was so insistent. Erm… you might want to look at the infamous Helsinki press conference where he was specifically asked by journalists if he was taking the words of Putin over his national security apparatus…. Anyway… Biden certainly wasn’t “sleepy joe!” Last night… that state of the union speech was a barn burner!! … I don’t think I have seen one as fierce as that in a long time!!" if your a democrat then yea if your the other half of the country then it didnt sound like he was offering them anything, sounded like if u dont support us fuck off. Way to try and bring the mental asylum that is america together lol | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Recent history shows Donald Trump WILL do Putin's bidding ..." "Can you give us an example of something that Trump has done because Putin asked him to?" "Well I can give you an example where is said out loud in public that he believed Vladimir Putin over his entire national security apparatus because he had “looked him into his eyes “ Is that good enough?….." "Errr, no. Partly because Trump didn't say those words, but mostly because Trump says lots of things that he doesn't follow through with. In this case Trump had been asked if he believed that Russia had meddled with his election, so obviously he's going to deny it." "Erm… you might want to look at the infamous Helsinki press conference where he was specifically asked by journalists if he was taking the words of Putin over his national security apparatus…." Yes, that was what I was talking about. They asked Trump if Russia had interfered in the 2016 election, and he said "President Putin says it's not Russia. I don't see any reason why it would be". He didn't say “looked him into his eyes“, which was what you quoted (that was a different president on a different occasion). Obviously if you ask Trump whether his election was rigged in any way, he's going to deny it. He wants everyone to believe that he won a great victory because he's a great guy. Also, this was said at a US/Russia conference. Even Trump knows that when you're in the middle of delicate negotiations, it's not a good idea to tell the press that you don't believe the other guy. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Nice of Biden to get that murdered young lady’s name correct…." Shameful of Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene, a hard-right Republican of Georgia....to use it as a dog whistling opportunity to create hate and division and a diversion from the real issues...yet that's what haters do. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Nice of Biden to get that murdered young lady’s name correct…. Shameful of Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene, a hard-right Republican of Georgia....to use it as a dog whistling opportunity to create hate and division and a diversion from the real issues...yet that's what haters do." Yup. Imagine being able to condemn both. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Nice of Biden to get that murdered young lady’s name correct…. Shameful of Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene, a hard-right Republican of Georgia....to use it as a dog whistling opportunity to create hate and division and a diversion from the real issues...yet that's what haters do." she pointed out it was an illegal who murderd her, was she lying? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Nice of Biden to get that murdered young lady’s name correct…. Shameful of Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene, a hard-right Republican of Georgia....to use it as a dog whistling opportunity to create hate and division and a diversion from the real issues...yet that's what haters do.she pointed out it was an illegal who murderd her, was she lying? " Is it more of a man partner thing instead of illegals? the stats say that, all of it is very tragic....using it as a dog whistling is shameful. https://amp-theguardian-com.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/amp.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/sep/26/femicide-us-silent-epidemic?amp_gsa=1&_js_v=a9&usqp=mq331AQIUAKwASCAAgM%3D#amp_tf=From%20%251%24s&aoh=17099104615703&referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com&share=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.theguardian.com%2Fus-news%2F2021%2Fsep%2F26%2Ffemicide-us-silent-epidemic | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Fact: On average, 2 women a week are killed by a current or former partner in England and Wales. https://refuge.org.uk/what-is-domestic-abuse/the-facts/#:~:text=Domestic%20abuse%20feels%20incredibly%20isolating,call%20999%20in%20an%20emergency." There are 24 million married people in the UK. Not exactly comparative. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Fact: On average, 2 women a week are killed by a current or former partner in England and Wales. https://refuge.org.uk/what-is-domestic-abuse/the-facts/#:~:text=Domestic%20abuse%20feels%20incredibly%20isolating,call%20999%20in%20an%20emergency." Nonsense. For the last year that statistics are available (up to March 2023), 70 women were killed in acts of domestic violence. That's 1.4 women per week. https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/crimeandjustice/articles/homicideinenglandandwales/yearendingmarch2023 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Recent history shows Donald Trump WILL do Putin's bidding ... Can you give us an example of something that Trump has done because Putin asked him to?" We cannot produce evidence but look at their actions. Why would Putin support Trump so strongly if Trump was hard on Putin? Why would Trump weaken the USA's stance on Russia? 1. It has been found that Putin's Russia acted to support Trump's election. 2. Told the world he believed Putin not the CIA or FBI. 3. He wants to withdraw support for Ukraine. 4. Despite clear evidence the Russians worked to get Trump elected he denies this. 5. He told Russia he would not defend any NATO country if it had not spent enough on defence and encouraged Russia to do what they want. 6. He suggested that the USA would recognise the illegal annexation of Crimea. 7. Trump repeatedly praises Putin. 8. In 2016 Trump wanted Paul Manfort to run his campaign despite Manafort having a decade long record of working on behalf of Russia and Russians 9. Trump made light of substantiated reports about Russia hacking in the USA. 10. Trump acted to Damage NATO at their first meeting with him. etc. Etc. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Nice of Biden to get that murdered young lady’s name correct…. Shameful of Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene, a hard-right Republican of Georgia....to use it as a dog whistling opportunity to create hate and division and a diversion from the real issues...yet that's what haters do.she pointed out it was an illegal who murderd her, was she lying? Is it more of a man partner thing instead of illegals? the stats say that, all of it is very tragic....using it as a dog whistling is shameful. https://amp-theguardian-com.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/amp.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/sep/26/femicide-us-silent-epidemic?amp_gsa=1&_js_v=a9&usqp=mq331AQIUAKwASCAAgM%3D#amp_tf=From%20%251%24s&aoh=17099104615703&referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com&share=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.theguardian.com%2Fus-news%2F2021%2Fsep%2F26%2Ffemicide-us-silent-epidemic" pretty sure she was killed by an illegaland seems as she was a kid its highley unlikley it was her other half unless you know different | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
""Donald Trump just asked Russia to attack our NATO allies. Donald Trump is asking for World War III" I'm seeing plenty of tweets similar to above. Are people actually that stupid? Or deaf maybe?" Yes, they’re that stupid. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Recent history shows Donald Trump WILL do Putin's bidding ... Can you give us an example of something that Trump has done because Putin asked him to? We cannot produce evidence but look at their actions. Why would Putin support Trump so strongly if Trump was hard on Putin? Why would Trump weaken the USA's stance on Russia? 1. It has been found that Putin's Russia acted to support Trump's election. 2. Told the world he believed Putin not the CIA or FBI. 3. He wants to withdraw support for Ukraine. 4. Despite clear evidence the Russians worked to get Trump elected he denies this. 5. He told Russia he would not defend any NATO country if it had not spent enough on defence and encouraged Russia to do what they want. 6. He suggested that the USA would recognise the illegal annexation of Crimea. 7. Trump repeatedly praises Putin. 8. In 2016 Trump wanted Paul Manfort to run his campaign despite Manafort having a decade long record of working on behalf of Russia and Russians 9. Trump made light of substantiated reports about Russia hacking in the USA. 10. Trump acted to Damage NATO at their first meeting with him. etc. Etc. " The laptop is a Russian hack in an attempt to bring down president Biden according to the fbi, what have they or will they do to punish Russia for this serious crime, China floats a spy balloon over the USA for a week is president Biden in China's hands. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Nice of Biden to get that murdered young lady’s name correct…. Shameful of Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene, a hard-right Republican of Georgia....to use it as a dog whistling opportunity to create hate and division and a diversion from the real issues...yet that's what haters do.she pointed out it was an illegal who murderd her, was she lying? Is it more of a man partner thing instead of illegals? the stats say that, all of it is very tragic....using it as a dog whistling is shameful. https://amp-theguardian-com.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/amp.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/sep/26/femicide-us-silent-epidemic?amp_gsa=1&_js_v=a9&usqp=mq331AQIUAKwASCAAgM%3D#amp_tf=From%20%251%24s&aoh=17099104615703&referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com&share=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.theguardian.com%2Fus-news%2F2021%2Fsep%2F26%2Ffemicide-us-silent-epidemicpretty sure she was killed by an illegaland seems as she was a kid its highley unlikley it was her other half unless you know different" Yep I know different...it's called femicide, happens to women and girls, doesn't have to be a partner. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Nice of Biden to get that murdered young lady’s name correct…. Shameful of Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene, a hard-right Republican of Georgia....to use it as a dog whistling opportunity to create hate and division and a diversion from the real issues...yet that's what haters do.she pointed out it was an illegal who murderd her, was she lying? Is it more of a man partner thing instead of illegals? the stats say that, all of it is very tragic....using it as a dog whistling is shameful. https://amp-theguardian-com.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/amp.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/sep/26/femicide-us-silent-epidemic?amp_gsa=1&_js_v=a9&usqp=mq331AQIUAKwASCAAgM%3D#amp_tf=From%20%251%24s&aoh=17099104615703&referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com&share=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.theguardian.com%2Fus-news%2F2021%2Fsep%2F26%2Ffemicide-us-silent-epidemicpretty sure she was killed by an illegaland seems as she was a kid its highley unlikley it was her other half unless you know different Yep I know different...it's called femicide, happens to women and girls, doesn't have to be a partner. " Is there a male equivalent to femicide. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Nice of Biden to get that murdered young lady’s name correct…. Shameful of Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene, a hard-right Republican of Georgia....to use it as a dog whistling opportunity to create hate and division and a diversion from the real issues...yet that's what haters do.she pointed out it was an illegal who murderd her, was she lying? Is it more of a man partner thing instead of illegals? the stats say that, all of it is very tragic....using it as a dog whistling is shameful. https://amp-theguardian-com.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/amp.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/sep/26/femicide-us-silent-epidemic?amp_gsa=1&_js_v=a9&usqp=mq331AQIUAKwASCAAgM%3D#amp_tf=From%20%251%24s&aoh=17099104615703&referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com&share=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.theguardian.com%2Fus-news%2F2021%2Fsep%2F26%2Ffemicide-us-silent-epidemicpretty sure she was killed by an illegaland seems as she was a kid its highley unlikley it was her other half unless you know different Yep I know different...it's called femicide, happens to women and girls, doesn't have to be a partner. " you was banging on about mtg i just asked you if she was lying about an illegal killing that girl then you start prattling on about partners killing there other half, so again was she lying wen she said that girl had been killed by an illegal? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"1. It has been found that Putin's Russia acted to support Trump's election." Yes. Russia wants to destabilise the USA, and getting Trump elected did that. But Trump wasn't involved. "2. Told the world he believed Putin not the CIA or FBI." Covered this above. "3. He wants to withdraw support for Ukraine." He only says this when talking about NATO countries not paying enough in. He's just trying to get them to pay more. "4. Despite clear evidence the Russians worked to get Trump elected he denies this." Of course he denies it, he wants people to believe that he won because he's so great. "5. He told Russia he would not defend any NATO country if it had not spent enough on defence and encouraged Russia to do what they want." He didn't do that, he told the US press that some NATO countries weren't paying their dues, and that those countries didn't deserve American protection. "6. He suggested that the USA would recognise the illegal annexation of Crimea." Haven't heard that one before. You'll need to provide a quote. "7. Trump repeatedly praises Putin." You mean 'praised', past tense. When Trump was prez he was trying to do business with Russia, so saying nice things about their prez was just 'diplomacy'. "8. In 2016 Trump wanted Paul Manfort to run his campaign despite Manafort having a decade long record of working on behalf of Russia and Russians" Now you're getting desperate. "9. Trump made light of substantiated reports about Russia hacking in the USA." See above. "10. Trump acted to Damage NATO at their first meeting with him." You'll need to explain that one. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Nice of Biden to get that murdered young lady’s name correct…. Shameful of Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene, a hard-right Republican of Georgia....to use it as a dog whistling opportunity to create hate and division and a diversion from the real issues...yet that's what haters do.she pointed out it was an illegal who murderd her, was she lying? Is it more of a man partner thing instead of illegals? the stats say that, all of it is very tragic....using it as a dog whistling is shameful. https://amp-theguardian-com.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/amp.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/sep/26/femicide-us-silent-epidemic?amp_gsa=1&_js_v=a9&usqp=mq331AQIUAKwASCAAgM%3D#amp_tf=From%20%251%24s&aoh=17099104615703&referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com&share=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.theguardian.com%2Fus-news%2F2021%2Fsep%2F26%2Ffemicide-us-silent-epidemicpretty sure she was killed by an illegaland seems as she was a kid its highley unlikley it was her other half unless you know different Yep I know different...it's called femicide, happens to women and girls, doesn't have to be a partner. you was banging on about mtg i just asked you if she was lying about an illegal killing that girl then you start prattling on about partners killing there other half, so again was she lying wen she said that girl had been killed by an illegal? " Stop listening to the whistling. Dog whistles: The secret language politicians are using https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-politics-46922909 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Nice of Biden to get that murdered young lady’s name correct…. Shameful of Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene, a hard-right Republican of Georgia....to use it as a dog whistling opportunity to create hate and division and a diversion from the real issues...yet that's what haters do.she pointed out it was an illegal who murderd her, was she lying? Is it more of a man partner thing instead of illegals? the stats say that, all of it is very tragic....using it as a dog whistling is shameful. https://amp-theguardian-com.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/amp.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/sep/26/femicide-us-silent-epidemic?amp_gsa=1&_js_v=a9&usqp=mq331AQIUAKwASCAAgM%3D#amp_tf=From%20%251%24s&aoh=17099104615703&referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com&share=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.theguardian.com%2Fus-news%2F2021%2Fsep%2F26%2Ffemicide-us-silent-epidemicpretty sure she was killed by an illegaland seems as she was a kid its highley unlikley it was her other half unless you know different Yep I know different...it's called femicide, happens to women and girls, doesn't have to be a partner. you was banging on about mtg i just asked you if she was lying about an illegal killing that girl then you start prattling on about partners killing there other half, so again was she lying wen she said that girl had been killed by an illegal? Stop listening to the whistling. Dog whistles: The secret language politicians are using https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-politics-46922909 " Quoting someone's opinion is not the truth, only their truth has they see it. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Nice of Biden to get that murdered young lady’s name correct…. Shameful of Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene, a hard-right Republican of Georgia....to use it as a dog whistling opportunity to create hate and division and a diversion from the real issues...yet that's what haters do.she pointed out it was an illegal who murderd her, was she lying? Is it more of a man partner thing instead of illegals? the stats say that, all of it is very tragic....using it as a dog whistling is shameful. https://amp-theguardian-com.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/amp.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/sep/26/femicide-us-silent-epidemic?amp_gsa=1&_js_v=a9&usqp=mq331AQIUAKwASCAAgM%3D#amp_tf=From%20%251%24s&aoh=17099104615703&referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com&share=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.theguardian.com%2Fus-news%2F2021%2Fsep%2F26%2Ffemicide-us-silent-epidemicpretty sure she was killed by an illegaland seems as she was a kid its highley unlikley it was her other half unless you know different Yep I know different...it's called femicide, happens to women and girls, doesn't have to be a partner. you was banging on about mtg i just asked you if she was lying about an illegal killing that girl then you start prattling on about partners killing there other half, so again was she lying wen she said that girl had been killed by an illegal? Stop listening to the whistling. Dog whistles: The secret language politicians are using https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-politics-46922909 " again was the girl killed by an illegal? Or you gona refuse to answer, personly not my circus and not my monkeys i just wana know if you think she was lying when she said the girl was killed by an illegal, | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Nice of Biden to get that murdered young lady’s name correct…. Shameful of Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene, a hard-right Republican of Georgia....to use it as a dog whistling opportunity to create hate and division and a diversion from the real issues...yet that's what haters do.she pointed out it was an illegal who murderd her, was she lying? Is it more of a man partner thing instead of illegals? the stats say that, all of it is very tragic....using it as a dog whistling is shameful. https://amp-theguardian-com.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/amp.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/sep/26/femicide-us-silent-epidemic?amp_gsa=1&_js_v=a9&usqp=mq331AQIUAKwASCAAgM%3D#amp_tf=From%20%251%24s&aoh=17099104615703&referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com&share=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.theguardian.com%2Fus-news%2F2021%2Fsep%2F26%2Ffemicide-us-silent-epidemicpretty sure she was killed by an illegaland seems as she was a kid its highley unlikley it was her other half unless you know different Yep I know different...it's called femicide, happens to women and girls, doesn't have to be a partner. you was banging on about mtg i just asked you if she was lying about an illegal killing that girl then you start prattling on about partners killing there other half, so again was she lying wen she said that girl had been killed by an illegal? Stop listening to the whistling. Dog whistles: The secret language politicians are using https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-politics-46922909 Quoting someone's opinion is not the truth, only their truth has they see it. "
Saying it's someone's opinion is not the truth, it's a diversion from the truth that this is dog whistling | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Nice of Biden to get that murdered young lady’s name correct…. Shameful of Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene, a hard-right Republican of Georgia....to use it as a dog whistling opportunity to create hate and division and a diversion from the real issues...yet that's what haters do.she pointed out it was an illegal who murderd her, was she lying? Is it more of a man partner thing instead of illegals? the stats say that, all of it is very tragic....using it as a dog whistling is shameful. https://amp-theguardian-com.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/amp.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/sep/26/femicide-us-silent-epidemic?amp_gsa=1&_js_v=a9&usqp=mq331AQIUAKwASCAAgM%3D#amp_tf=From%20%251%24s&aoh=17099104615703&referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com&share=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.theguardian.com%2Fus-news%2F2021%2Fsep%2F26%2Ffemicide-us-silent-epidemicpretty sure she was killed by an illegaland seems as she was a kid its highley unlikley it was her other half unless you know different Yep I know different...it's called femicide, happens to women and girls, doesn't have to be a partner. you was banging on about mtg i just asked you if she was lying about an illegal killing that girl then you start prattling on about partners killing there other half, so again was she lying wen she said that girl had been killed by an illegal? Stop listening to the whistling. Dog whistles: The secret language politicians are using https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-politics-46922909 again was the girl killed by an illegal? Or you gona refuse to answer, personly not my circus and not my monkeys i just wana know if you think she was lying when she said the girl was killed by an illegal, " I hear the dog whistle but choose not to run towards it slobberly jowled. It's becoming a bit of a joke when you keep asking me ...again was the girl killed by an illegal? Or you gona refuse to answer..... whistle whistle, I am sure people are board of this, have a lovely weekend. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Nice of Biden to get that murdered young lady’s name correct…. Shameful of Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene, a hard-right Republican of Georgia....to use it as a dog whistling opportunity to create hate and division and a diversion from the real issues...yet that's what haters do.she pointed out it was an illegal who murderd her, was she lying? Is it more of a man partner thing instead of illegals? the stats say that, all of it is very tragic....using it as a dog whistling is shameful. https://amp-theguardian-com.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/amp.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/sep/26/femicide-us-silent-epidemic?amp_gsa=1&_js_v=a9&usqp=mq331AQIUAKwASCAAgM%3D#amp_tf=From%20%251%24s&aoh=17099104615703&referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com&share=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.theguardian.com%2Fus-news%2F2021%2Fsep%2F26%2Ffemicide-us-silent-epidemicpretty sure she was killed by an illegaland seems as she was a kid its highley unlikley it was her other half unless you know different Yep I know different...it's called femicide, happens to women and girls, doesn't have to be a partner. you was banging on about mtg i just asked you if she was lying about an illegal killing that girl then you start prattling on about partners killing there other half, so again was she lying wen she said that girl had been killed by an illegal? Stop listening to the whistling. Dog whistles: The secret language politicians are using https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-politics-46922909 again was the girl killed by an illegal? Or you gona refuse to answer, personly not my circus and not my monkeys i just wana know if you think she was lying when she said the girl was killed by an illegal, I hear the dog whistle but choose not to run towards it slobberly jowled. It's becoming a bit of a joke when you keep asking me ...again was the girl killed by an illegal? Or you gona refuse to answer..... whistle whistle, I am sure people are board of this, have a lovely weekend." i will thanks surprised you havent used the r word yet thats usualy the go to on here xx | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Nice of Biden to get that murdered young lady’s name correct…. Shameful of Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene, a hard-right Republican of Georgia....to use it as a dog whistling opportunity to create hate and division and a diversion from the real issues...yet that's what haters do.she pointed out it was an illegal who murderd her, was she lying? Is it more of a man partner thing instead of illegals? the stats say that, all of it is very tragic....using it as a dog whistling is shameful. https://amp-theguardian-com.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/amp.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/sep/26/femicide-us-silent-epidemic?amp_gsa=1&_js_v=a9&usqp=mq331AQIUAKwASCAAgM%3D#amp_tf=From%20%251%24s&aoh=17099104615703&referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com&share=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.theguardian.com%2Fus-news%2F2021%2Fsep%2F26%2Ffemicide-us-silent-epidemicpretty sure she was killed by an illegaland seems as she was a kid its highley unlikley it was her other half unless you know different Yep I know different...it's called femicide, happens to women and girls, doesn't have to be a partner. you was banging on about mtg i just asked you if she was lying about an illegal killing that girl then you start prattling on about partners killing there other half, so again was she lying wen she said that girl had been killed by an illegal? Stop listening to the whistling. Dog whistles: The secret language politicians are using https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-politics-46922909 again was the girl killed by an illegal? Or you gona refuse to answer, personly not my circus and not my monkeys i just wana know if you think she was lying when she said the girl was killed by an illegal, I hear the dog whistle but choose not to run towards it slobberly jowled. It's becoming a bit of a joke when you keep asking me ...again was the girl killed by an illegal? Or you gona refuse to answer..... whistle whistle, I am sure people are board of this, have a lovely weekend. i will thanks surprised you havent used the r word yet thats usualy the go to on here xx"Rabbit | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
""Donald Trump just asked Russia to attack our NATO allies. Donald Trump is asking for World War III" I'm seeing plenty of tweets similar to above. Are people actually that stupid? Or deaf maybe?" Sadly, people really are THAT stupid. We've seen the clip they refer to and its clear it's for domestic audience as its just pure division and discord sowing. Divide and conquer to rule the masses at work, and the low IQ's lap it up. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Nice of Biden to get that murdered young lady’s name correct…. Shameful of Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene, a hard-right Republican of Georgia....to use it as a dog whistling opportunity to create hate and division and a diversion from the real issues...yet that's what haters do.she pointed out it was an illegal who murderd her, was she lying? Is it more of a man partner thing instead of illegals? the stats say that, all of it is very tragic....using it as a dog whistling is shameful. https://amp-theguardian-com.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/amp.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/sep/26/femicide-us-silent-epidemic?amp_gsa=1&_js_v=a9&usqp=mq331AQIUAKwASCAAgM%3D#amp_tf=From%20%251%24s&aoh=17099104615703&referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com&share=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.theguardian.com%2Fus-news%2F2021%2Fsep%2F26%2Ffemicide-us-silent-epidemicpretty sure she was killed by an illegaland seems as she was a kid its highley unlikley it was her other half unless you know different Yep I know different...it's called femicide, happens to women and girls, doesn't have to be a partner. you was banging on about mtg i just asked you if she was lying about an illegal killing that girl then you start prattling on about partners killing there other half, so again was she lying wen she said that girl had been killed by an illegal? Stop listening to the whistling. Dog whistles: The secret language politicians are using https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-politics-46922909 again was the girl killed by an illegal? Or you gona refuse to answer, personly not my circus and not my monkeys i just wana know if you think she was lying when she said the girl was killed by an illegal, I hear the dog whistle but choose not to run towards it slobberly jowled. It's becoming a bit of a joke when you keep asking me ...again was the girl killed by an illegal? Or you gona refuse to answer..... whistle whistle, I am sure people are board of this, have a lovely weekend. i will thanks surprised you havent used the r word yet thats usualy the go to on here xx
Rabbit "damn i thought you was gona reply with your new word you just learnt dog whistling ?? ?? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Nice of Biden to get that murdered young lady’s name correct…. Shameful of Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene, a hard-right Republican of Georgia....to use it as a dog whistling opportunity to create hate and division and a diversion from the real issues...yet that's what haters do.she pointed out it was an illegal who murderd her, was she lying? Is it more of a man partner thing instead of illegals? the stats say that, all of it is very tragic....using it as a dog whistling is shameful. https://amp-theguardian-com.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/amp.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/sep/26/femicide-us-silent-epidemic?amp_gsa=1&_js_v=a9&usqp=mq331AQIUAKwASCAAgM%3D#amp_tf=From%20%251%24s&aoh=17099104615703&referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com&share=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.theguardian.com%2Fus-news%2F2021%2Fsep%2F26%2Ffemicide-us-silent-epidemicpretty sure she was killed by an illegaland seems as she was a kid its highley unlikley it was her other half unless you know different Yep I know different...it's called femicide, happens to women and girls, doesn't have to be a partner. you was banging on about mtg i just asked you if she was lying about an illegal killing that girl then you start prattling on about partners killing there other half, so again was she lying wen she said that girl had been killed by an illegal? Stop listening to the whistling. Dog whistles: The secret language politicians are using https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-politics-46922909 again was the girl killed by an illegal? Or you gona refuse to answer, personly not my circus and not my monkeys i just wana know if you think she was lying when she said the girl was killed by an illegal, I hear the dog whistle but choose not to run towards it slobberly jowled. It's becoming a bit of a joke when you keep asking me ...again was the girl killed by an illegal? Or you gona refuse to answer..... whistle whistle, I am sure people are board of this, have a lovely weekend. i will thanks surprised you havent used the r word yet thats usualy the go to on here xx
Rabbit damn i thought you was gona reply with your new word you just learnt dog whistling ?? ?? "I prefer the purr of a rabbit | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Trump still claiming the election was rigged. And also claiming that 82% of the country ‘understand’ that it was rigged. Seriously America, how can you sit back and accept that? " It might be 82% of his wonky minded friends but I seriously doubt the majority of the population believes it. He's just met with Orban, from Hungary and he's reporting that there'll be no expenditure on Ukraine | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I do enjoy the irony of Trump telling others to ‘pay up’ " You made me lol, always a welcome reaction on the politics forum x | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Trump still claiming the election was rigged. And also claiming that 82% of the country ‘understand’ that it was rigged. Seriously America, how can you sit back and accept that? It might be 82% of his wonky minded friends but I seriously doubt the majority of the population believes it. He's just met with Orban, from Hungary and he's reporting that there'll be no expenditure on Ukraine "It’s not about who believes it though - America’s lauded freedom of speech allows him to stand up and say that undemocratic nonsense, whilst hoping to run for president. How can that be allowed? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Trump still claiming the election was rigged. And also claiming that 82% of the country ‘understand’ that it was rigged. Seriously America, how can you sit back and accept that? It might be 82% of his wonky minded friends but I seriously doubt the majority of the population believes it. He's just met with Orban, from Hungary and he's reporting that there'll be no expenditure on Ukraine
It’s not about who believes it though - America’s lauded freedom of speech allows him to stand up and say that undemocratic nonsense, whilst hoping to run for president. How can that be allowed? "You don't agree with freedom of speech for everyone, I am the same you can keep it, give me freedom to question any day. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Trump still claiming the election was rigged. And also claiming that 82% of the country ‘understand’ that it was rigged. Seriously America, how can you sit back and accept that? It might be 82% of his wonky minded friends but I seriously doubt the majority of the population believes it. He's just met with Orban, from Hungary and he's reporting that there'll be no expenditure on Ukraine
It’s not about who believes it though - America’s lauded freedom of speech allows him to stand up and say that undemocratic nonsense, whilst hoping to run for president. How can that be allowed?
You don't agree with freedom of speech for everyone, I am the same you can keep it, give me freedom to question any day."I agree with freedom of speech, but not freedom from consequence. The price for Trump’s blatant undemocratic act should be his being struck from standing as president. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Trump still claiming the election was rigged. And also claiming that 82% of the country ‘understand’ that it was rigged. Seriously America, how can you sit back and accept that? It might be 82% of his wonky minded friends but I seriously doubt the majority of the population believes it. He's just met with Orban, from Hungary and he's reporting that there'll be no expenditure on Ukraine
It’s not about who believes it though - America’s lauded freedom of speech allows him to stand up and say that undemocratic nonsense, whilst hoping to run for president. How can that be allowed?
You don't agree with freedom of speech for everyone, I am the same you can keep it, give me freedom to question any day.
I agree with freedom of speech, but not freedom from consequence.
The price for Trump’s blatant undemocratic act should be his being struck from standing as president."Undemocratic act, please explain. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Trump still claiming the election was rigged. And also claiming that 82% of the country ‘understand’ that it was rigged. Seriously America, how can you sit back and accept that? It might be 82% of his wonky minded friends but I seriously doubt the majority of the population believes it. He's just met with Orban, from Hungary and he's reporting that there'll be no expenditure on Ukraine
It’s not about who believes it though - America’s lauded freedom of speech allows him to stand up and say that undemocratic nonsense, whilst hoping to run for president. How can that be allowed?
You don't agree with freedom of speech for everyone, I am the same you can keep it, give me freedom to question any day.
I agree with freedom of speech, but not freedom from consequence.
The price for Trump’s blatant undemocratic act should be his being struck from standing as president.
Undemocratic act, please explain."A) Still publicly claiming the election was rigged. B) Publicly claiming a significant majority of Americans also believe the election was rigged. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Trump still claiming the election was rigged. And also claiming that 82% of the country ‘understand’ that it was rigged. Seriously America, how can you sit back and accept that? It might be 82% of his wonky minded friends but I seriously doubt the majority of the population believes it. He's just met with Orban, from Hungary and he's reporting that there'll be no expenditure on Ukraine
It’s not about who believes it though - America’s lauded freedom of speech allows him to stand up and say that undemocratic nonsense, whilst hoping to run for president. How can that be allowed?
You don't agree with freedom of speech for everyone, I am the same you can keep it, give me freedom to question any day.
I agree with freedom of speech, but not freedom from consequence.
The price for Trump’s blatant undemocratic act should be his being struck from standing as president.
Undemocratic act, please explain.
A) Still publicly claiming the election was rigged.
B) Publicly claiming a significant majority of Americans also believe the election was rigged.
"And you see that has undemocratic, questioning something. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Trump still claiming the election was rigged. And also claiming that 82% of the country ‘understand’ that it was rigged. Seriously America, how can you sit back and accept that? It might be 82% of his wonky minded friends but I seriously doubt the majority of the population believes it. He's just met with Orban, from Hungary and he's reporting that there'll be no expenditure on Ukraine
It’s not about who believes it though - America’s lauded freedom of speech allows him to stand up and say that undemocratic nonsense, whilst hoping to run for president. How can that be allowed?
You don't agree with freedom of speech for everyone, I am the same you can keep it, give me freedom to question any day.
I agree with freedom of speech, but not freedom from consequence.
The price for Trump’s blatant undemocratic act should be his being struck from standing as president.
Undemocratic act, please explain.
A) Still publicly claiming the election was rigged.
B) Publicly claiming a significant majority of Americans also believe the election was rigged.
And you see that has undemocratic, questioning something. "He’s not questioning. He’s making an objective statement. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Trump still claiming the election was rigged. And also claiming that 82% of the country ‘understand’ that it was rigged. Seriously America, how can you sit back and accept that? It might be 82% of his wonky minded friends but I seriously doubt the majority of the population believes it. He's just met with Orban, from Hungary and he's reporting that there'll be no expenditure on Ukraine
It’s not about who believes it though - America’s lauded freedom of speech allows him to stand up and say that undemocratic nonsense, whilst hoping to run for president. How can that be allowed?
You don't agree with freedom of speech for everyone, I am the same you can keep it, give me freedom to question any day.
I agree with freedom of speech, but not freedom from consequence.
The price for Trump’s blatant undemocratic act should be his being struck from standing as president.
Undemocratic act, please explain.
A) Still publicly claiming the election was rigged.
B) Publicly claiming a significant majority of Americans also believe the election was rigged.
And you see that has undemocratic, questioning something.
He’s not questioning. He’s making an objective statement."The 1 million dollars spent by Mrs Clinton on the dossier was also an objective statement then. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Trump still claiming the election was rigged. And also claiming that 82% of the country ‘understand’ that it was rigged. Seriously America, how can you sit back and accept that? It might be 82% of his wonky minded friends but I seriously doubt the majority of the population believes it. He's just met with Orban, from Hungary and he's reporting that there'll be no expenditure on Ukraine
It’s not about who believes it though - America’s lauded freedom of speech allows him to stand up and say that undemocratic nonsense, whilst hoping to run for president. How can that be allowed?
You don't agree with freedom of speech for everyone, I am the same you can keep it, give me freedom to question any day.
I agree with freedom of speech, but not freedom from consequence.
The price for Trump’s blatant undemocratic act should be his being struck from standing as president.
Undemocratic act, please explain.
A) Still publicly claiming the election was rigged.
B) Publicly claiming a significant majority of Americans also believe the election was rigged.
And you see that has undemocratic, questioning something.
He’s not questioning. He’s making an objective statement.
The 1 million dollars spent by Mrs Clinton on the dossier was also an objective statement then."Let’s not skirt around here - is it democratic to claim an election was rigged? And is it democratic to invent a figure and claim that they also know an election was rigged? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Trump still claiming the election was rigged. And also claiming that 82% of the country ‘understand’ that it was rigged. Seriously America, how can you sit back and accept that? It might be 82% of his wonky minded friends but I seriously doubt the majority of the population believes it. He's just met with Orban, from Hungary and he's reporting that there'll be no expenditure on Ukraine
It’s not about who believes it though - America’s lauded freedom of speech allows him to stand up and say that undemocratic nonsense, whilst hoping to run for president. How can that be allowed?
You don't agree with freedom of speech for everyone, I am the same you can keep it, give me freedom to question any day.
I agree with freedom of speech, but not freedom from consequence.
The price for Trump’s blatant undemocratic act should be his being struck from standing as president.
Undemocratic act, please explain.
A) Still publicly claiming the election was rigged.
B) Publicly claiming a significant majority of Americans also believe the election was rigged.
And you see that has undemocratic, questioning something.
He’s not questioning. He’s making an objective statement.
The 1 million dollars spent by Mrs Clinton on the dossier was also an objective statement then.
Let’s not skirt around here - is it democratic to claim an election was rigged? And is it democratic to invent a figure and claim that they also know an election was rigged?
"Freedom of speach or to question is democratic, inventing Russia got Mr trump potus and then pushing to impeach the guy is blatantly undemocratic on the American people. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Trump still claiming the election was rigged. And also claiming that 82% of the country ‘understand’ that it was rigged. Seriously America, how can you sit back and accept that? It might be 82% of his wonky minded friends but I seriously doubt the majority of the population believes it. He's just met with Orban, from Hungary and he's reporting that there'll be no expenditure on Ukraine
It’s not about who believes it though - America’s lauded freedom of speech allows him to stand up and say that undemocratic nonsense, whilst hoping to run for president. How can that be allowed?
You don't agree with freedom of speech for everyone, I am the same you can keep it, give me freedom to question any day.
I agree with freedom of speech, but not freedom from consequence.
The price for Trump’s blatant undemocratic act should be his being struck from standing as president.
Undemocratic act, please explain.
A) Still publicly claiming the election was rigged.
B) Publicly claiming a significant majority of Americans also believe the election was rigged.
And you see that has undemocratic, questioning something.
He’s not questioning. He’s making an objective statement.
The 1 million dollars spent by Mrs Clinton on the dossier was also an objective statement then.
Let’s not skirt around here - is it democratic to claim an election was rigged? And is it democratic to invent a figure and claim that they also know an election was rigged?
Freedom of speach or to question is democratic, inventing Russia got Mr trump potus and then pushing to impeach the guy is blatantly undemocratic on the American people. "Once again, he’s not questioning. He’s making a statement of fact - one that’s been disproven repeatedly. And the 82% claim can’t be backed up anywhere. https://www.wral.com/amp/21316494/ | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"America have Freedom of Speech laws. He can say what he likes and it can be debunked using facts. Calling for him to be barred because of what he says is as undemocratic as it can get "It’s profoundly undemocratic to make claims like that. You can pretend it isn’t if it suits your argument, but you’re not actually combing anyone of the fact. Democracy, effective democracy is reliant upon the truth - or at least a truth that can be argued using facts. Trump’s statement cannot be defended in any way, shape or form. If you think that his statement was in any way democratic, I’m not sure where you can go from there. You’re wrong, demonstrably, objectively wrong. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Trump still claiming the election was rigged. And also claiming that 82% of the country ‘understand’ that it was rigged. Seriously America, how can you sit back and accept that? It might be 82% of his wonky minded friends but I seriously doubt the majority of the population believes it. He's just met with Orban, from Hungary and he's reporting that there'll be no expenditure on Ukraine
It’s not about who believes it though - America’s lauded freedom of speech allows him to stand up and say that undemocratic nonsense, whilst hoping to run for president. How can that be allowed?
You don't agree with freedom of speech for everyone, I am the same you can keep it, give me freedom to question any day.
I agree with freedom of speech, but not freedom from consequence.
The price for Trump’s blatant undemocratic act should be his being struck from standing as president.
Undemocratic act, please explain.
A) Still publicly claiming the election was rigged.
B) Publicly claiming a significant majority of Americans also believe the election was rigged.
And you see that has undemocratic, questioning something.
He’s not questioning. He’s making an objective statement.
The 1 million dollars spent by Mrs Clinton on the dossier was also an objective statement then.
Let’s not skirt around here - is it democratic to claim an election was rigged? And is it democratic to invent a figure and claim that they also know an election was rigged?
Freedom of speach or to question is democratic, inventing Russia got Mr trump potus and then pushing to impeach the guy is blatantly undemocratic on the American people.
Once again, he’s not questioning. He’s making a statement of fact - one that’s been disproven repeatedly.
And the 82% claim can’t be backed up anywhere.
https://www.wral.com/amp/21316494/
"And Mrs Clinton paid 1 million dollars for a dossier of fiction claiming it to be factual that Russia put Mr trump into potus and wanted the guy impeached, thankfully they realised it was a piece of expensive dog doo, an undemocratic act trying to overturn the result. She actually went out her way in an act of treason to undemocraticly remove a sitting president. And Mr trump has not even presented a dossier. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Trump still claiming the election was rigged. And also claiming that 82% of the country ‘understand’ that it was rigged. Seriously America, how can you sit back and accept that? It might be 82% of his wonky minded friends but I seriously doubt the majority of the population believes it. He's just met with Orban, from Hungary and he's reporting that there'll be no expenditure on Ukraine
It’s not about who believes it though - America’s lauded freedom of speech allows him to stand up and say that undemocratic nonsense, whilst hoping to run for president. How can that be allowed?
You don't agree with freedom of speech for everyone, I am the same you can keep it, give me freedom to question any day.
I agree with freedom of speech, but not freedom from consequence.
The price for Trump’s blatant undemocratic act should be his being struck from standing as president.
Undemocratic act, please explain.
A) Still publicly claiming the election was rigged.
B) Publicly claiming a significant majority of Americans also believe the election was rigged.
And you see that has undemocratic, questioning something.
He’s not questioning. He’s making an objective statement.
The 1 million dollars spent by Mrs Clinton on the dossier was also an objective statement then.
Let’s not skirt around here - is it democratic to claim an election was rigged? And is it democratic to invent a figure and claim that they also know an election was rigged?
Freedom of speach or to question is democratic, inventing Russia got Mr trump potus and then pushing to impeach the guy is blatantly undemocratic on the American people.
Once again, he’s not questioning. He’s making a statement of fact - one that’s been disproven repeatedly.
And the 82% claim can’t be backed up anywhere.
https://www.wral.com/amp/21316494/
And Mrs Clinton paid 1 million dollars for a dossier of fiction claiming it to be factual that Russia put Mr trump into potus and wanted the guy impeached, thankfully they realised it was a piece of expensive dog doo, an undemocratic act trying to overturn the result. She actually went out her way in an act of treason to undemocraticly remove a sitting president. And Mr trump has not even presented a dossier. "Still trying to divert onto Clinton - why? Is it because you know that Trump’s statement was undemocratic horse-shit? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"America have Freedom of Speech laws. He can say what he likes and it can be debunked using facts. Calling for him to be barred because of what he says is as undemocratic as it can get
It’s profoundly undemocratic to make claims like that. You can pretend it isn’t if it suits your argument, but you’re not actually combing anyone of the fact.
Democracy, effective democracy is reliant upon the truth - or at least a truth that can be argued using facts. Trump’s statement cannot be defended in any way, shape or form.
If you think that his statement was in any way democratic, I’m not sure where you can go from there. You’re wrong, demonstrably, objectively wrong. "I'm not defending him. He is within the law though. Do you think barring someone who is within the law is democratic? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"America have Freedom of Speech laws. He can say what he likes and it can be debunked using facts. Calling for him to be barred because of what he says is as undemocratic as it can get
It’s profoundly undemocratic to make claims like that. You can pretend it isn’t if it suits your argument, but you’re not actually combing anyone of the fact.
Democracy, effective democracy is reliant upon the truth - or at least a truth that can be argued using facts. Trump’s statement cannot be defended in any way, shape or form.
If you think that his statement was in any way democratic, I’m not sure where you can go from there. You’re wrong, demonstrably, objectively wrong.
I'm not defending him. He is within the law though.
Do you think barring someone who is within the law is democratic?
"I believe that a system that allows someone to invent dangerous nonsense like that without recourse is probably irreparably fucked. In a grown up system he would indeed be barred from standing. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Trump still claiming the election was rigged. And also claiming that 82% of the country ‘understand’ that it was rigged. Seriously America, how can you sit back and accept that? It might be 82% of his wonky minded friends but I seriously doubt the majority of the population believes it. He's just met with Orban, from Hungary and he's reporting that there'll be no expenditure on Ukraine
It’s not about who believes it though - America’s lauded freedom of speech allows him to stand up and say that undemocratic nonsense, whilst hoping to run for president. How can that be allowed?
You don't agree with freedom of speech for everyone, I am the same you can keep it, give me freedom to question any day.
I agree with freedom of speech, but not freedom from consequence.
The price for Trump’s blatant undemocratic act should be his being struck from standing as president.
Undemocratic act, please explain.
A) Still publicly claiming the election was rigged.
B) Publicly claiming a significant majority of Americans also believe the election was rigged.
And you see that has undemocratic, questioning something.
He’s not questioning. He’s making an objective statement.
The 1 million dollars spent by Mrs Clinton on the dossier was also an objective statement then.
Let’s not skirt around here - is it democratic to claim an election was rigged? And is it democratic to invent a figure and claim that they also know an election was rigged?
Freedom of speach or to question is democratic, inventing Russia got Mr trump potus and then pushing to impeach the guy is blatantly undemocratic on the American people.
Once again, he’s not questioning. He’s making a statement of fact - one that’s been disproven repeatedly.
And the 82% claim can’t be backed up anywhere.
https://www.wral.com/amp/21316494/
And Mrs Clinton paid 1 million dollars for a dossier of fiction claiming it to be factual that Russia put Mr trump into potus and wanted the guy impeached, thankfully they realised it was a piece of expensive dog doo, an undemocratic act trying to overturn the result. She actually went out her way in an act of treason to undemocraticly remove a sitting president. And Mr trump has not even presented a dossier.
Still trying to divert onto Clinton - why? Is it because you know that Trump’s statement was undemocratic horse-shit?"She went out her way and lied to overturn the result of the election with a 1 million dollar treasonous act, what if Mrs Clinton did get her way and Mr trump was impeached would that of been democratic.? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"America have Freedom of Speech laws. He can say what he likes and it can be debunked using facts. Calling for him to be barred because of what he says is as undemocratic as it can get
It’s profoundly undemocratic to make claims like that. You can pretend it isn’t if it suits your argument, but you’re not actually combing anyone of the fact.
Democracy, effective democracy is reliant upon the truth - or at least a truth that can be argued using facts. Trump’s statement cannot be defended in any way, shape or form.
If you think that his statement was in any way democratic, I’m not sure where you can go from there. You’re wrong, demonstrably, objectively wrong.
I'm not defending him. He is within the law though.
Do you think barring someone who is within the law is democratic?
I believe that a system that allows someone to invent dangerous nonsense like that without recourse is probably irreparably fucked.
In a grown up system he would indeed be barred from standing. "In a grown up system most of them would be in jail, we can probably include worldwide politicians in that statement. What you should do is accept that countries have laws which you cannot affect in any way. It'll help your blood pressure as you'll rant less | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Trump still claiming the election was rigged. And also claiming that 82% of the country ‘understand’ that it was rigged. Seriously America, how can you sit back and accept that? It might be 82% of his wonky minded friends but I seriously doubt the majority of the population believes it. He's just met with Orban, from Hungary and he's reporting that there'll be no expenditure on Ukraine
It’s not about who believes it though - America’s lauded freedom of speech allows him to stand up and say that undemocratic nonsense, whilst hoping to run for president. How can that be allowed?
You don't agree with freedom of speech for everyone, I am the same you can keep it, give me freedom to question any day.
I agree with freedom of speech, but not freedom from consequence.
The price for Trump’s blatant undemocratic act should be his being struck from standing as president.
Undemocratic act, please explain.
A) Still publicly claiming the election was rigged.
B) Publicly claiming a significant majority of Americans also believe the election was rigged.
And you see that has undemocratic, questioning something.
He’s not questioning. He’s making an objective statement.
The 1 million dollars spent by Mrs Clinton on the dossier was also an objective statement then.
Let’s not skirt around here - is it democratic to claim an election was rigged? And is it democratic to invent a figure and claim that they also know an election was rigged?
Freedom of speach or to question is democratic, inventing Russia got Mr trump potus and then pushing to impeach the guy is blatantly undemocratic on the American people.
Once again, he’s not questioning. He’s making a statement of fact - one that’s been disproven repeatedly.
And the 82% claim can’t be backed up anywhere.
https://www.wral.com/amp/21316494/
And Mrs Clinton paid 1 million dollars for a dossier of fiction claiming it to be factual that Russia put Mr trump into potus and wanted the guy impeached, thankfully they realised it was a piece of expensive dog doo, an undemocratic act trying to overturn the result. She actually went out her way in an act of treason to undemocraticly remove a sitting president. And Mr trump has not even presented a dossier.
Still trying to divert onto Clinton - why? Is it because you know that Trump’s statement was undemocratic horse-shit?
She went out her way and lied to overturn the result of the election with a 1 million dollar treasonous act, what if Mrs Clinton did get her way and Mr trump was impeached would that of been democratic.?
"You seem unwilling to discuss Trump’s statement. Why is that? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Trump still claiming the election was rigged. And also claiming that 82% of the country ‘understand’ that it was rigged. Seriously America, how can you sit back and accept that? It might be 82% of his wonky minded friends but I seriously doubt the majority of the population believes it. He's just met with Orban, from Hungary and he's reporting that there'll be no expenditure on Ukraine
It’s not about who believes it though - America’s lauded freedom of speech allows him to stand up and say that undemocratic nonsense, whilst hoping to run for president. How can that be allowed?
You don't agree with freedom of speech for everyone, I am the same you can keep it, give me freedom to question any day.
I agree with freedom of speech, but not freedom from consequence.
The price for Trump’s blatant undemocratic act should be his being struck from standing as president.
Undemocratic act, please explain.
A) Still publicly claiming the election was rigged.
B) Publicly claiming a significant majority of Americans also believe the election was rigged.
And you see that has undemocratic, questioning something.
He’s not questioning. He’s making an objective statement.
The 1 million dollars spent by Mrs Clinton on the dossier was also an objective statement then.
Let’s not skirt around here - is it democratic to claim an election was rigged? And is it democratic to invent a figure and claim that they also know an election was rigged?
Freedom of speach or to question is democratic, inventing Russia got Mr trump potus and then pushing to impeach the guy is blatantly undemocratic on the American people.
Once again, he’s not questioning. He’s making a statement of fact - one that’s been disproven repeatedly.
And the 82% claim can’t be backed up anywhere.
https://www.wral.com/amp/21316494/
And Mrs Clinton paid 1 million dollars for a dossier of fiction claiming it to be factual that Russia put Mr trump into potus and wanted the guy impeached, thankfully they realised it was a piece of expensive dog doo, an undemocratic act trying to overturn the result. She actually went out her way in an act of treason to undemocraticly remove a sitting president. And Mr trump has not even presented a dossier.
Still trying to divert onto Clinton - why? Is it because you know that Trump’s statement was undemocratic horse-shit?
She went out her way and lied to overturn the result of the election with a 1 million dollar treasonous act, what if Mrs Clinton did get her way and Mr trump was impeached would that of been democratic.?
You seem unwilling to discuss Trump’s statement. Why is that? "I have discussed it, questioning something is not undemocratic in my opinion. Now actually attempting to overturn the result and spending 1 million dollars to get it done is undemocratic and treasonous in my opinion. And you are saying that is not undemocratic. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Trump still claiming the election was rigged. And also claiming that 82% of the country ‘understand’ that it was rigged. Seriously America, how can you sit back and accept that? It might be 82% of his wonky minded friends but I seriously doubt the majority of the population believes it. He's just met with Orban, from Hungary and he's reporting that there'll be no expenditure on Ukraine
It’s not about who believes it though - America’s lauded freedom of speech allows him to stand up and say that undemocratic nonsense, whilst hoping to run for president. How can that be allowed?
You don't agree with freedom of speech for everyone, I am the same you can keep it, give me freedom to question any day.
I agree with freedom of speech, but not freedom from consequence.
The price for Trump’s blatant undemocratic act should be his being struck from standing as president.
Undemocratic act, please explain.
A) Still publicly claiming the election was rigged.
B) Publicly claiming a significant majority of Americans also believe the election was rigged.
And you see that has undemocratic, questioning something.
He’s not questioning. He’s making an objective statement.
The 1 million dollars spent by Mrs Clinton on the dossier was also an objective statement then.
Let’s not skirt around here - is it democratic to claim an election was rigged? And is it democratic to invent a figure and claim that they also know an election was rigged?
Freedom of speach or to question is democratic, inventing Russia got Mr trump potus and then pushing to impeach the guy is blatantly undemocratic on the American people.
Once again, he’s not questioning. He’s making a statement of fact - one that’s been disproven repeatedly.
And the 82% claim can’t be backed up anywhere.
https://www.wral.com/amp/21316494/
And Mrs Clinton paid 1 million dollars for a dossier of fiction claiming it to be factual that Russia put Mr trump into potus and wanted the guy impeached, thankfully they realised it was a piece of expensive dog doo, an undemocratic act trying to overturn the result. She actually went out her way in an act of treason to undemocraticly remove a sitting president. And Mr trump has not even presented a dossier.
Still trying to divert onto Clinton - why? Is it because you know that Trump’s statement was undemocratic horse-shit?
She went out her way and lied to overturn the result of the election with a 1 million dollar treasonous act, what if Mrs Clinton did get her way and Mr trump was impeached would that of been democratic.?
You seem unwilling to discuss Trump’s statement. Why is that?
I have discussed it, questioning something is not undemocratic in my opinion.
Now actually attempting to overturn the result and spending 1 million dollars to get it done is undemocratic and treasonous in my opinion.
And you are saying that is not undemocratic. "I haven’t made any statement about Clinton - don’t invent things. And Trump (once again because you don’t seem to understand) isn’t questioning the 2020 result - he’s outright claiming it was rigged. And also claiming that a large majority of Americans agree. You’re lying as badly as Trump. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Trump still claiming the election was rigged. And also claiming that 82% of the country ‘understand’ that it was rigged. Seriously America, how can you sit back and accept that? It might be 82% of his wonky minded friends but I seriously doubt the majority of the population believes it. He's just met with Orban, from Hungary and he's reporting that there'll be no expenditure on Ukraine
It’s not about who believes it though - America’s lauded freedom of speech allows him to stand up and say that undemocratic nonsense, whilst hoping to run for president. How can that be allowed?
You don't agree with freedom of speech for everyone, I am the same you can keep it, give me freedom to question any day.
I agree with freedom of speech, but not freedom from consequence.
The price for Trump’s blatant undemocratic act should be his being struck from standing as president.
Undemocratic act, please explain.
A) Still publicly claiming the election was rigged.
B) Publicly claiming a significant majority of Americans also believe the election was rigged.
And you see that has undemocratic, questioning something.
He’s not questioning. He’s making an objective statement.
The 1 million dollars spent by Mrs Clinton on the dossier was also an objective statement then.
Let’s not skirt around here - is it democratic to claim an election was rigged? And is it democratic to invent a figure and claim that they also know an election was rigged?
Freedom of speach or to question is democratic, inventing Russia got Mr trump potus and then pushing to impeach the guy is blatantly undemocratic on the American people.
Once again, he’s not questioning. He’s making a statement of fact - one that’s been disproven repeatedly.
And the 82% claim can’t be backed up anywhere.
https://www.wral.com/amp/21316494/
And Mrs Clinton paid 1 million dollars for a dossier of fiction claiming it to be factual that Russia put Mr trump into potus and wanted the guy impeached, thankfully they realised it was a piece of expensive dog doo, an undemocratic act trying to overturn the result. She actually went out her way in an act of treason to undemocraticly remove a sitting president. And Mr trump has not even presented a dossier.
Still trying to divert onto Clinton - why? Is it because you know that Trump’s statement was undemocratic horse-shit?
She went out her way and lied to overturn the result of the election with a 1 million dollar treasonous act, what if Mrs Clinton did get her way and Mr trump was impeached would that of been democratic.?
You seem unwilling to discuss Trump’s statement. Why is that?
I have discussed it, questioning something is not undemocratic in my opinion.
Now actually attempting to overturn the result and spending 1 million dollars to get it done is undemocratic and treasonous in my opinion.
And you are saying that is not undemocratic.
I haven’t made any statement about Clinton - don’t invent things.
And Trump (once again because you don’t seem to understand) isn’t questioning the 2020 result - he’s outright claiming it was rigged. And also claiming that a large majority of Americans agree.
You’re lying as badly as Trump. "Outright claiming, freedom of speech and to question is not afforded to Mr trump in your book, he just needs to shut up cuz his words are undemocratic. Lol | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Trump still claiming the election was rigged. And also claiming that 82% of the country ‘understand’ that it was rigged. Seriously America, how can you sit back and accept that? It might be 82% of his wonky minded friends but I seriously doubt the majority of the population believes it. He's just met with Orban, from Hungary and he's reporting that there'll be no expenditure on Ukraine
It’s not about who believes it though - America’s lauded freedom of speech allows him to stand up and say that undemocratic nonsense, whilst hoping to run for president. How can that be allowed?
You don't agree with freedom of speech for everyone, I am the same you can keep it, give me freedom to question any day.
I agree with freedom of speech, but not freedom from consequence.
The price for Trump’s blatant undemocratic act should be his being struck from standing as president.
Undemocratic act, please explain.
A) Still publicly claiming the election was rigged.
B) Publicly claiming a significant majority of Americans also believe the election was rigged.
And you see that has undemocratic, questioning something.
He’s not questioning. He’s making an objective statement.
The 1 million dollars spent by Mrs Clinton on the dossier was also an objective statement then.
Let’s not skirt around here - is it democratic to claim an election was rigged? And is it democratic to invent a figure and claim that they also know an election was rigged?
Freedom of speach or to question is democratic, inventing Russia got Mr trump potus and then pushing to impeach the guy is blatantly undemocratic on the American people.
Once again, he’s not questioning. He’s making a statement of fact - one that’s been disproven repeatedly.
And the 82% claim can’t be backed up anywhere.
https://www.wral.com/amp/21316494/
And Mrs Clinton paid 1 million dollars for a dossier of fiction claiming it to be factual that Russia put Mr trump into potus and wanted the guy impeached, thankfully they realised it was a piece of expensive dog doo, an undemocratic act trying to overturn the result. She actually went out her way in an act of treason to undemocraticly remove a sitting president. And Mr trump has not even presented a dossier.
Still trying to divert onto Clinton - why? Is it because you know that Trump’s statement was undemocratic horse-shit?
She went out her way and lied to overturn the result of the election with a 1 million dollar treasonous act, what if Mrs Clinton did get her way and Mr trump was impeached would that of been democratic.?
You seem unwilling to discuss Trump’s statement. Why is that?
I have discussed it, questioning something is not undemocratic in my opinion.
Now actually attempting to overturn the result and spending 1 million dollars to get it done is undemocratic and treasonous in my opinion.
And you are saying that is not undemocratic.
I haven’t made any statement about Clinton - don’t invent things.
And Trump (once again because you don’t seem to understand) isn’t questioning the 2020 result - he’s outright claiming it was rigged. And also claiming that a large majority of Americans agree.
You’re lying as badly as Trump.
Outright claiming, freedom of speech and to question is not afforded to Mr trump in your book, he just needs to shut up cuz his words are undemocratic.
Lol"Do you support his blatant untruth? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Trump still claiming the election was rigged. And also claiming that 82% of the country ‘understand’ that it was rigged. Seriously America, how can you sit back and accept that? It might be 82% of his wonky minded friends but I seriously doubt the majority of the population believes it. He's just met with Orban, from Hungary and he's reporting that there'll be no expenditure on Ukraine
It’s not about who believes it though - America’s lauded freedom of speech allows him to stand up and say that undemocratic nonsense, whilst hoping to run for president. How can that be allowed?
You don't agree with freedom of speech for everyone, I am the same you can keep it, give me freedom to question any day.
I agree with freedom of speech, but not freedom from consequence.
The price for Trump’s blatant undemocratic act should be his being struck from standing as president.
Undemocratic act, please explain.
A) Still publicly claiming the election was rigged.
B) Publicly claiming a significant majority of Americans also believe the election was rigged.
And you see that has undemocratic, questioning something.
He’s not questioning. He’s making an objective statement.
The 1 million dollars spent by Mrs Clinton on the dossier was also an objective statement then.
Let’s not skirt around here - is it democratic to claim an election was rigged? And is it democratic to invent a figure and claim that they also know an election was rigged?
Freedom of speach or to question is democratic, inventing Russia got Mr trump potus and then pushing to impeach the guy is blatantly undemocratic on the American people.
Once again, he’s not questioning. He’s making a statement of fact - one that’s been disproven repeatedly.
And the 82% claim can’t be backed up anywhere.
https://www.wral.com/amp/21316494/
And Mrs Clinton paid 1 million dollars for a dossier of fiction claiming it to be factual that Russia put Mr trump into potus and wanted the guy impeached, thankfully they realised it was a piece of expensive dog doo, an undemocratic act trying to overturn the result. She actually went out her way in an act of treason to undemocraticly remove a sitting president. And Mr trump has not even presented a dossier.
Still trying to divert onto Clinton - why? Is it because you know that Trump’s statement was undemocratic horse-shit?
She went out her way and lied to overturn the result of the election with a 1 million dollar treasonous act, what if Mrs Clinton did get her way and Mr trump was impeached would that of been democratic.?
You seem unwilling to discuss Trump’s statement. Why is that?
I have discussed it, questioning something is not undemocratic in my opinion.
Now actually attempting to overturn the result and spending 1 million dollars to get it done is undemocratic and treasonous in my opinion.
And you are saying that is not undemocratic.
I haven’t made any statement about Clinton - don’t invent things.
And Trump (once again because you don’t seem to understand) isn’t questioning the 2020 result - he’s outright claiming it was rigged. And also claiming that a large majority of Americans agree.
You’re lying as badly as Trump.
Outright claiming, freedom of speech and to question is not afforded to Mr trump in your book, he just needs to shut up cuz his words are undemocratic.
Lol
Do you support his blatant untruth? "Yes I support anyone's freedom of speech and to question. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Trump still claiming the election was rigged. And also claiming that 82% of the country ‘understand’ that it was rigged. Seriously America, how can you sit back and accept that? It might be 82% of his wonky minded friends but I seriously doubt the majority of the population believes it. He's just met with Orban, from Hungary and he's reporting that there'll be no expenditure on Ukraine
It’s not about who believes it though - America’s lauded freedom of speech allows him to stand up and say that undemocratic nonsense, whilst hoping to run for president. How can that be allowed?
You don't agree with freedom of speech for everyone, I am the same you can keep it, give me freedom to question any day.
I agree with freedom of speech, but not freedom from consequence.
The price for Trump’s blatant undemocratic act should be his being struck from standing as president.
Undemocratic act, please explain.
A) Still publicly claiming the election was rigged.
B) Publicly claiming a significant majority of Americans also believe the election was rigged.
And you see that has undemocratic, questioning something.
He’s not questioning. He’s making an objective statement.
The 1 million dollars spent by Mrs Clinton on the dossier was also an objective statement then.
Let’s not skirt around here - is it democratic to claim an election was rigged? And is it democratic to invent a figure and claim that they also know an election was rigged?
Freedom of speach or to question is democratic, inventing Russia got Mr trump potus and then pushing to impeach the guy is blatantly undemocratic on the American people.
Once again, he’s not questioning. He’s making a statement of fact - one that’s been disproven repeatedly.
And the 82% claim can’t be backed up anywhere.
https://www.wral.com/amp/21316494/
And Mrs Clinton paid 1 million dollars for a dossier of fiction claiming it to be factual that Russia put Mr trump into potus and wanted the guy impeached, thankfully they realised it was a piece of expensive dog doo, an undemocratic act trying to overturn the result. She actually went out her way in an act of treason to undemocraticly remove a sitting president. And Mr trump has not even presented a dossier.
Still trying to divert onto Clinton - why? Is it because you know that Trump’s statement was undemocratic horse-shit?
She went out her way and lied to overturn the result of the election with a 1 million dollar treasonous act, what if Mrs Clinton did get her way and Mr trump was impeached would that of been democratic.?
You seem unwilling to discuss Trump’s statement. Why is that?
I have discussed it, questioning something is not undemocratic in my opinion.
Now actually attempting to overturn the result and spending 1 million dollars to get it done is undemocratic and treasonous in my opinion.
And you are saying that is not undemocratic.
I haven’t made any statement about Clinton - don’t invent things.
And Trump (once again because you don’t seem to understand) isn’t questioning the 2020 result - he’s outright claiming it was rigged. And also claiming that a large majority of Americans agree.
You’re lying as badly as Trump.
Outright claiming, freedom of speech and to question is not afforded to Mr trump in your book, he just needs to shut up cuz his words are undemocratic.
Lol
Do you support his blatant untruth?
Yes I support anyone's freedom of speech and to question."So despite the fact that it’s been repeatedly proven that the election wasn’t rigged, you support someone insisting that it was? (Not questioning - outright stating) And despite 30% of *republicans* believing that it was rigged, you think it’s acceptable to claim that 82% of Americans feel that way? Would you support Guy Verhofstadt stating publicly that a majority of the U.K. wish to rejoin the EU? Or Corbyn claiming That the 2017/2019 elections were rigged? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Trump still claiming the election was rigged. And also claiming that 82% of the country ‘understand’ that it was rigged. Seriously America, how can you sit back and accept that? It might be 82% of his wonky minded friends but I seriously doubt the majority of the population believes it. He's just met with Orban, from Hungary and he's reporting that there'll be no expenditure on Ukraine
It’s not about who believes it though - America’s lauded freedom of speech allows him to stand up and say that undemocratic nonsense, whilst hoping to run for president. How can that be allowed?
You don't agree with freedom of speech for everyone, I am the same you can keep it, give me freedom to question any day.
I agree with freedom of speech, but not freedom from consequence.
The price for Trump’s blatant undemocratic act should be his being struck from standing as president.
Undemocratic act, please explain.
A) Still publicly claiming the election was rigged.
B) Publicly claiming a significant majority of Americans also believe the election was rigged.
And you see that has undemocratic, questioning something.
He’s not questioning. He’s making an objective statement.
The 1 million dollars spent by Mrs Clinton on the dossier was also an objective statement then.
Let’s not skirt around here - is it democratic to claim an election was rigged? And is it democratic to invent a figure and claim that they also know an election was rigged?
Freedom of speach or to question is democratic, inventing Russia got Mr trump potus and then pushing to impeach the guy is blatantly undemocratic on the American people.
Once again, he’s not questioning. He’s making a statement of fact - one that’s been disproven repeatedly.
And the 82% claim can’t be backed up anywhere.
https://www.wral.com/amp/21316494/
And Mrs Clinton paid 1 million dollars for a dossier of fiction claiming it to be factual that Russia put Mr trump into potus and wanted the guy impeached, thankfully they realised it was a piece of expensive dog doo, an undemocratic act trying to overturn the result. She actually went out her way in an act of treason to undemocraticly remove a sitting president. And Mr trump has not even presented a dossier.
Still trying to divert onto Clinton - why? Is it because you know that Trump’s statement was undemocratic horse-shit?
She went out her way and lied to overturn the result of the election with a 1 million dollar treasonous act, what if Mrs Clinton did get her way and Mr trump was impeached would that of been democratic.?
You seem unwilling to discuss Trump’s statement. Why is that?
I have discussed it, questioning something is not undemocratic in my opinion.
Now actually attempting to overturn the result and spending 1 million dollars to get it done is undemocratic and treasonous in my opinion.
And you are saying that is not undemocratic.
I haven’t made any statement about Clinton - don’t invent things.
And Trump (once again because you don’t seem to understand) isn’t questioning the 2020 result - he’s outright claiming it was rigged. And also claiming that a large majority of Americans agree.
You’re lying as badly as Trump.
Outright claiming, freedom of speech and to question is not afforded to Mr trump in your book, he just needs to shut up cuz his words are undemocratic.
Lol
Do you support his blatant untruth?
Yes I support anyone's freedom of speech and to question.
So despite the fact that it’s been repeatedly proven that the election wasn’t rigged, you support someone insisting that it was? (Not questioning - outright stating)
And despite 30% of *republicans* believing that it was rigged, you think it’s acceptable to claim that 82% of Americans feel that way?
Would you support Guy Verhofstadt stating publicly that a majority of the U.K. wish to rejoin the EU? Or Corbyn claiming That the 2017/2019 elections were rigged? "I don't deal with whataboutisms just the truth and facts. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Trump still claiming the election was rigged. And also claiming that 82% of the country ‘understand’ that it was rigged. Seriously America, how can you sit back and accept that? It might be 82% of his wonky minded friends but I seriously doubt the majority of the population believes it. He's just met with Orban, from Hungary and he's reporting that there'll be no expenditure on Ukraine
It’s not about who believes it though - America’s lauded freedom of speech allows him to stand up and say that undemocratic nonsense, whilst hoping to run for president. How can that be allowed?
You don't agree with freedom of speech for everyone, I am the same you can keep it, give me freedom to question any day.
I agree with freedom of speech, but not freedom from consequence.
The price for Trump’s blatant undemocratic act should be his being struck from standing as president.
Undemocratic act, please explain.
A) Still publicly claiming the election was rigged.
B) Publicly claiming a significant majority of Americans also believe the election was rigged.
And you see that has undemocratic, questioning something.
He’s not questioning. He’s making an objective statement.
The 1 million dollars spent by Mrs Clinton on the dossier was also an objective statement then.
Let’s not skirt around here - is it democratic to claim an election was rigged? And is it democratic to invent a figure and claim that they also know an election was rigged?
Freedom of speach or to question is democratic, inventing Russia got Mr trump potus and then pushing to impeach the guy is blatantly undemocratic on the American people.
Once again, he’s not questioning. He’s making a statement of fact - one that’s been disproven repeatedly.
And the 82% claim can’t be backed up anywhere.
https://www.wral.com/amp/21316494/
And Mrs Clinton paid 1 million dollars for a dossier of fiction claiming it to be factual that Russia put Mr trump into potus and wanted the guy impeached, thankfully they realised it was a piece of expensive dog doo, an undemocratic act trying to overturn the result. She actually went out her way in an act of treason to undemocraticly remove a sitting president. And Mr trump has not even presented a dossier.
Still trying to divert onto Clinton - why? Is it because you know that Trump’s statement was undemocratic horse-shit?
She went out her way and lied to overturn the result of the election with a 1 million dollar treasonous act, what if Mrs Clinton did get her way and Mr trump was impeached would that of been democratic.?
You seem unwilling to discuss Trump’s statement. Why is that?
I have discussed it, questioning something is not undemocratic in my opinion.
Now actually attempting to overturn the result and spending 1 million dollars to get it done is undemocratic and treasonous in my opinion.
And you are saying that is not undemocratic.
I haven’t made any statement about Clinton - don’t invent things.
And Trump (once again because you don’t seem to understand) isn’t questioning the 2020 result - he’s outright claiming it was rigged. And also claiming that a large majority of Americans agree.
You’re lying as badly as Trump.
Outright claiming, freedom of speech and to question is not afforded to Mr trump in your book, he just needs to shut up cuz his words are undemocratic.
Lol
Do you support his blatant untruth?
Yes I support anyone's freedom of speech and to question.
So despite the fact that it’s been repeatedly proven that the election wasn’t rigged, you support someone insisting that it was? (Not questioning - outright stating)
And despite 30% of *republicans* believing that it was rigged, you think it’s acceptable to claim that 82% of Americans feel that way?
Would you support Guy Verhofstadt stating publicly that a majority of the U.K. wish to rejoin the EU? Or Corbyn claiming That the 2017/2019 elections were rigged?
I don't deal with whataboutisms just the truth and facts."And since we know that Trump isn’t telling the truth, nor discussing facts, how do you square that circle? Do you think republicans have a responsibility to call Trump out on his lies? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Trump still claiming the election was rigged. And also claiming that 82% of the country ‘understand’ that it was rigged. Seriously America, how can you sit back and accept that? It might be 82% of his wonky minded friends but I seriously doubt the majority of the population believes it. He's just met with Orban, from Hungary and he's reporting that there'll be no expenditure on Ukraine
It’s not about who believes it though - America’s lauded freedom of speech allows him to stand up and say that undemocratic nonsense, whilst hoping to run for president. How can that be allowed?
You don't agree with freedom of speech for everyone, I am the same you can keep it, give me freedom to question any day.
I agree with freedom of speech, but not freedom from consequence.
The price for Trump’s blatant undemocratic act should be his being struck from standing as president.
Undemocratic act, please explain.
A) Still publicly claiming the election was rigged.
B) Publicly claiming a significant majority of Americans also believe the election was rigged.
And you see that has undemocratic, questioning something.
He’s not questioning. He’s making an objective statement.
The 1 million dollars spent by Mrs Clinton on the dossier was also an objective statement then.
Let’s not skirt around here - is it democratic to claim an election was rigged? And is it democratic to invent a figure and claim that they also know an election was rigged?
Freedom of speach or to question is democratic, inventing Russia got Mr trump potus and then pushing to impeach the guy is blatantly undemocratic on the American people.
Once again, he’s not questioning. He’s making a statement of fact - one that’s been disproven repeatedly.
And the 82% claim can’t be backed up anywhere.
https://www.wral.com/amp/21316494/
And Mrs Clinton paid 1 million dollars for a dossier of fiction claiming it to be factual that Russia put Mr trump into potus and wanted the guy impeached, thankfully they realised it was a piece of expensive dog doo, an undemocratic act trying to overturn the result. She actually went out her way in an act of treason to undemocraticly remove a sitting president. And Mr trump has not even presented a dossier.
Still trying to divert onto Clinton - why? Is it because you know that Trump’s statement was undemocratic horse-shit?
She went out her way and lied to overturn the result of the election with a 1 million dollar treasonous act, what if Mrs Clinton did get her way and Mr trump was impeached would that of been democratic.?
You seem unwilling to discuss Trump’s statement. Why is that?
I have discussed it, questioning something is not undemocratic in my opinion.
Now actually attempting to overturn the result and spending 1 million dollars to get it done is undemocratic and treasonous in my opinion.
And you are saying that is not undemocratic.
I haven’t made any statement about Clinton - don’t invent things.
And Trump (once again because you don’t seem to understand) isn’t questioning the 2020 result - he’s outright claiming it was rigged. And also claiming that a large majority of Americans agree.
You’re lying as badly as Trump.
Outright claiming, freedom of speech and to question is not afforded to Mr trump in your book, he just needs to shut up cuz his words are undemocratic.
Lol
Do you support his blatant untruth?
Yes I support anyone's freedom of speech and to question.
So despite the fact that it’s been repeatedly proven that the election wasn’t rigged, you support someone insisting that it was? (Not questioning - outright stating)
And despite 30% of *republicans* believing that it was rigged, you think it’s acceptable to claim that 82% of Americans feel that way?
Would you support Guy Verhofstadt stating publicly that a majority of the U.K. wish to rejoin the EU? Or Corbyn claiming That the 2017/2019 elections were rigged?
I don't deal with whataboutisms just the truth and facts.
And since we know that Trump isn’t telling the truth, nor discussing facts, how do you square that circle?
Do you think republicans have a responsibility to call Trump out on his lies? "It has not been found what he said from his free speech has not been proven either way. It might be the truth have you considered that. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Trump still claiming the election was rigged. And also claiming that 82% of the country ‘understand’ that it was rigged. Seriously America, how can you sit back and accept that? It might be 82% of his wonky minded friends but I seriously doubt the majority of the population believes it. He's just met with Orban, from Hungary and he's reporting that there'll be no expenditure on Ukraine
It’s not about who believes it though - America’s lauded freedom of speech allows him to stand up and say that undemocratic nonsense, whilst hoping to run for president. How can that be allowed?
You don't agree with freedom of speech for everyone, I am the same you can keep it, give me freedom to question any day.
I agree with freedom of speech, but not freedom from consequence.
The price for Trump’s blatant undemocratic act should be his being struck from standing as president.
Undemocratic act, please explain.
A) Still publicly claiming the election was rigged.
B) Publicly claiming a significant majority of Americans also believe the election was rigged.
And you see that has undemocratic, questioning something.
He’s not questioning. He’s making an objective statement.
The 1 million dollars spent by Mrs Clinton on the dossier was also an objective statement then.
Let’s not skirt around here - is it democratic to claim an election was rigged? And is it democratic to invent a figure and claim that they also know an election was rigged?
Freedom of speach or to question is democratic, inventing Russia got Mr trump potus and then pushing to impeach the guy is blatantly undemocratic on the American people.
Once again, he’s not questioning. He’s making a statement of fact - one that’s been disproven repeatedly.
And the 82% claim can’t be backed up anywhere.
https://www.wral.com/amp/21316494/
And Mrs Clinton paid 1 million dollars for a dossier of fiction claiming it to be factual that Russia put Mr trump into potus and wanted the guy impeached, thankfully they realised it was a piece of expensive dog doo, an undemocratic act trying to overturn the result. She actually went out her way in an act of treason to undemocraticly remove a sitting president. And Mr trump has not even presented a dossier.
Still trying to divert onto Clinton - why? Is it because you know that Trump’s statement was undemocratic horse-shit?
She went out her way and lied to overturn the result of the election with a 1 million dollar treasonous act, what if Mrs Clinton did get her way and Mr trump was impeached would that of been democratic.?
You seem unwilling to discuss Trump’s statement. Why is that?
I have discussed it, questioning something is not undemocratic in my opinion.
Now actually attempting to overturn the result and spending 1 million dollars to get it done is undemocratic and treasonous in my opinion.
And you are saying that is not undemocratic.
I haven’t made any statement about Clinton - don’t invent things.
And Trump (once again because you don’t seem to understand) isn’t questioning the 2020 result - he’s outright claiming it was rigged. And also claiming that a large majority of Americans agree.
You’re lying as badly as Trump.
Outright claiming, freedom of speech and to question is not afforded to Mr trump in your book, he just needs to shut up cuz his words are undemocratic.
Lol
Do you support his blatant untruth?
Yes I support anyone's freedom of speech and to question.
So despite the fact that it’s been repeatedly proven that the election wasn’t rigged, you support someone insisting that it was? (Not questioning - outright stating)
And despite 30% of *republicans* believing that it was rigged, you think it’s acceptable to claim that 82% of Americans feel that way?
Would you support Guy Verhofstadt stating publicly that a majority of the U.K. wish to rejoin the EU? Or Corbyn claiming That the 2017/2019 elections were rigged?
I don't deal with whataboutisms just the truth and facts.
And since we know that Trump isn’t telling the truth, nor discussing facts, how do you square that circle?
Do you think republicans have a responsibility to call Trump out on his lies?
It has not been found what he said from his free speech has not been proven either way. It might be the truth have you considered that."It’s already been proven as lie - as the link I provided earlier eloquently demonstrated. That’s the whole point. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Trump still claiming the election was rigged. And also claiming that 82% of the country ‘understand’ that it was rigged. Seriously America, how can you sit back and accept that? It might be 82% of his wonky minded friends but I seriously doubt the majority of the population believes it. He's just met with Orban, from Hungary and he's reporting that there'll be no expenditure on Ukraine
It’s not about who believes it though - America’s lauded freedom of speech allows him to stand up and say that undemocratic nonsense, whilst hoping to run for president. How can that be allowed?
You don't agree with freedom of speech for everyone, I am the same you can keep it, give me freedom to question any day.
I agree with freedom of speech, but not freedom from consequence.
The price for Trump’s blatant undemocratic act should be his being struck from standing as president.
Undemocratic act, please explain.
A) Still publicly claiming the election was rigged.
B) Publicly claiming a significant majority of Americans also believe the election was rigged.
And you see that has undemocratic, questioning something.
He’s not questioning. He’s making an objective statement.
The 1 million dollars spent by Mrs Clinton on the dossier was also an objective statement then.
Let’s not skirt around here - is it democratic to claim an election was rigged? And is it democratic to invent a figure and claim that they also know an election was rigged?
Freedom of speach or to question is democratic, inventing Russia got Mr trump potus and then pushing to impeach the guy is blatantly undemocratic on the American people.
Once again, he’s not questioning. He’s making a statement of fact - one that’s been disproven repeatedly.
And the 82% claim can’t be backed up anywhere.
https://www.wral.com/amp/21316494/
And Mrs Clinton paid 1 million dollars for a dossier of fiction claiming it to be factual that Russia put Mr trump into potus and wanted the guy impeached, thankfully they realised it was a piece of expensive dog doo, an undemocratic act trying to overturn the result. She actually went out her way in an act of treason to undemocraticly remove a sitting president. And Mr trump has not even presented a dossier.
Still trying to divert onto Clinton - why? Is it because you know that Trump’s statement was undemocratic horse-shit?
She went out her way and lied to overturn the result of the election with a 1 million dollar treasonous act, what if Mrs Clinton did get her way and Mr trump was impeached would that of been democratic.?
You seem unwilling to discuss Trump’s statement. Why is that?
I have discussed it, questioning something is not undemocratic in my opinion.
Now actually attempting to overturn the result and spending 1 million dollars to get it done is undemocratic and treasonous in my opinion.
And you are saying that is not undemocratic.
I haven’t made any statement about Clinton - don’t invent things.
And Trump (once again because you don’t seem to understand) isn’t questioning the 2020 result - he’s outright claiming it was rigged. And also claiming that a large majority of Americans agree.
You’re lying as badly as Trump.
Outright claiming, freedom of speech and to question is not afforded to Mr trump in your book, he just needs to shut up cuz his words are undemocratic.
Lol
Do you support his blatant untruth?
Yes I support anyone's freedom of speech and to question.
So despite the fact that it’s been repeatedly proven that the election wasn’t rigged, you support someone insisting that it was? (Not questioning - outright stating)
And despite 30% of *republicans* believing that it was rigged, you think it’s acceptable to claim that 82% of Americans feel that way?
Would you support Guy Verhofstadt stating publicly that a majority of the U.K. wish to rejoin the EU? Or Corbyn claiming That the 2017/2019 elections were rigged?
I don't deal with whataboutisms just the truth and facts.
And since we know that Trump isn’t telling the truth, nor discussing facts, how do you square that circle?
Do you think republicans have a responsibility to call Trump out on his lies?
It has not been found what he said from his free speech has not been proven either way. It might be the truth have you considered that.
It’s already been proven as lie - as the link I provided earlier eloquently demonstrated. That’s the whole point."unfounded. If you can't see it is a lynch of Mr trump for the past 8 years you really need to open your eye. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Trump still claiming the election was rigged. And also claiming that 82% of the country ‘understand’ that it was rigged. Seriously America, how can you sit back and accept that? It might be 82% of his wonky minded friends but I seriously doubt the majority of the population believes it. He's just met with Orban, from Hungary and he's reporting that there'll be no expenditure on Ukraine
It’s not about who believes it though - America’s lauded freedom of speech allows him to stand up and say that undemocratic nonsense, whilst hoping to run for president. How can that be allowed?
You don't agree with freedom of speech for everyone, I am the same you can keep it, give me freedom to question any day.
I agree with freedom of speech, but not freedom from consequence.
The price for Trump’s blatant undemocratic act should be his being struck from standing as president.
Undemocratic act, please explain.
A) Still publicly claiming the election was rigged.
B) Publicly claiming a significant majority of Americans also believe the election was rigged.
And you see that has undemocratic, questioning something.
He’s not questioning. He’s making an objective statement.
The 1 million dollars spent by Mrs Clinton on the dossier was also an objective statement then.
Let’s not skirt around here - is it democratic to claim an election was rigged? And is it democratic to invent a figure and claim that they also know an election was rigged?
Freedom of speach or to question is democratic, inventing Russia got Mr trump potus and then pushing to impeach the guy is blatantly undemocratic on the American people.
Once again, he’s not questioning. He’s making a statement of fact - one that’s been disproven repeatedly.
And the 82% claim can’t be backed up anywhere.
https://www.wral.com/amp/21316494/
And Mrs Clinton paid 1 million dollars for a dossier of fiction claiming it to be factual that Russia put Mr trump into potus and wanted the guy impeached, thankfully they realised it was a piece of expensive dog doo, an undemocratic act trying to overturn the result. She actually went out her way in an act of treason to undemocraticly remove a sitting president. And Mr trump has not even presented a dossier.
Still trying to divert onto Clinton - why? Is it because you know that Trump’s statement was undemocratic horse-shit?
She went out her way and lied to overturn the result of the election with a 1 million dollar treasonous act, what if Mrs Clinton did get her way and Mr trump was impeached would that of been democratic.?
You seem unwilling to discuss Trump’s statement. Why is that?
I have discussed it, questioning something is not undemocratic in my opinion.
Now actually attempting to overturn the result and spending 1 million dollars to get it done is undemocratic and treasonous in my opinion.
And you are saying that is not undemocratic.
I haven’t made any statement about Clinton - don’t invent things.
And Trump (once again because you don’t seem to understand) isn’t questioning the 2020 result - he’s outright claiming it was rigged. And also claiming that a large majority of Americans agree.
You’re lying as badly as Trump.
Outright claiming, freedom of speech and to question is not afforded to Mr trump in your book, he just needs to shut up cuz his words are undemocratic.
Lol
Do you support his blatant untruth?
Yes I support anyone's freedom of speech and to question.
So despite the fact that it’s been repeatedly proven that the election wasn’t rigged, you support someone insisting that it was? (Not questioning - outright stating)
And despite 30% of *republicans* believing that it was rigged, you think it’s acceptable to claim that 82% of Americans feel that way?
Would you support Guy Verhofstadt stating publicly that a majority of the U.K. wish to rejoin the EU? Or Corbyn claiming That the 2017/2019 elections were rigged?
I don't deal with whataboutisms just the truth and facts.
And since we know that Trump isn’t telling the truth, nor discussing facts, how do you square that circle?
Do you think republicans have a responsibility to call Trump out on his lies?
It has not been found what he said from his free speech has not been proven either way. It might be the truth have you considered that.
It’s already been proven as lie - as the link I provided earlier eloquently demonstrated. That’s the whole point.
unfounded. If you can't see it is a lynch of Mr trump for the past 8 years you really need to open your eye."Ah, I see. You don’t actually care about the truth or facts at all. We got there in the end | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Trump still claiming the election was rigged. And also claiming that 82% of the country ‘understand’ that it was rigged. Seriously America, how can you sit back and accept that? It might be 82% of his wonky minded friends but I seriously doubt the majority of the population believes it. He's just met with Orban, from Hungary and he's reporting that there'll be no expenditure on Ukraine
It’s not about who believes it though - America’s lauded freedom of speech allows him to stand up and say that undemocratic nonsense, whilst hoping to run for president. How can that be allowed?
You don't agree with freedom of speech for everyone, I am the same you can keep it, give me freedom to question any day.
I agree with freedom of speech, but not freedom from consequence.
The price for Trump’s blatant undemocratic act should be his being struck from standing as president.
Undemocratic act, please explain.
A) Still publicly claiming the election was rigged.
B) Publicly claiming a significant majority of Americans also believe the election was rigged.
And you see that has undemocratic, questioning something.
He’s not questioning. He’s making an objective statement.
The 1 million dollars spent by Mrs Clinton on the dossier was also an objective statement then.
Let’s not skirt around here - is it democratic to claim an election was rigged? And is it democratic to invent a figure and claim that they also know an election was rigged?
Freedom of speach or to question is democratic, inventing Russia got Mr trump potus and then pushing to impeach the guy is blatantly undemocratic on the American people.
Once again, he’s not questioning. He’s making a statement of fact - one that’s been disproven repeatedly.
And the 82% claim can’t be backed up anywhere.
https://www.wral.com/amp/21316494/
And Mrs Clinton paid 1 million dollars for a dossier of fiction claiming it to be factual that Russia put Mr trump into potus and wanted the guy impeached, thankfully they realised it was a piece of expensive dog doo, an undemocratic act trying to overturn the result. She actually went out her way in an act of treason to undemocraticly remove a sitting president. And Mr trump has not even presented a dossier.
Still trying to divert onto Clinton - why? Is it because you know that Trump’s statement was undemocratic horse-shit?
She went out her way and lied to overturn the result of the election with a 1 million dollar treasonous act, what if Mrs Clinton did get her way and Mr trump was impeached would that of been democratic.?
You seem unwilling to discuss Trump’s statement. Why is that?
I have discussed it, questioning something is not undemocratic in my opinion.
Now actually attempting to overturn the result and spending 1 million dollars to get it done is undemocratic and treasonous in my opinion.
And you are saying that is not undemocratic.
I haven’t made any statement about Clinton - don’t invent things.
And Trump (once again because you don’t seem to understand) isn’t questioning the 2020 result - he’s outright claiming it was rigged. And also claiming that a large majority of Americans agree.
You’re lying as badly as Trump.
Outright claiming, freedom of speech and to question is not afforded to Mr trump in your book, he just needs to shut up cuz his words are undemocratic.
Lol
Do you support his blatant untruth?
Yes I support anyone's freedom of speech and to question.
So despite the fact that it’s been repeatedly proven that the election wasn’t rigged, you support someone insisting that it was? (Not questioning - outright stating)
And despite 30% of *republicans* believing that it was rigged, you think it’s acceptable to claim that 82% of Americans feel that way?
Would you support Guy Verhofstadt stating publicly that a majority of the U.K. wish to rejoin the EU? Or Corbyn claiming That the 2017/2019 elections were rigged?
I don't deal with whataboutisms just the truth and facts.
And since we know that Trump isn’t telling the truth, nor discussing facts, how do you square that circle?
Do you think republicans have a responsibility to call Trump out on his lies?
It has not been found what he said from his free speech has not been proven either way. It might be the truth have you considered that.
It’s already been proven as lie - as the link I provided earlier eloquently demonstrated. That’s the whole point.
unfounded. If you can't see it is a lynch of Mr trump for the past 8 years you really need to open your eye."Find one outfit that backs up Trump’s claim of 82% of Americans believing the 2020 election was rigged. One source. That’s all I ask. One. Please report back when you’ve got it. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Trump still claiming the election was rigged. And also claiming that 82% of the country ‘understand’ that it was rigged. Seriously America, how can you sit back and accept that? It might be 82% of his wonky minded friends but I seriously doubt the majority of the population believes it. He's just met with Orban, from Hungary and he's reporting that there'll be no expenditure on Ukraine
It’s not about who believes it though - America’s lauded freedom of speech allows him to stand up and say that undemocratic nonsense, whilst hoping to run for president. How can that be allowed?
You don't agree with freedom of speech for everyone, I am the same you can keep it, give me freedom to question any day.
I agree with freedom of speech, but not freedom from consequence.
The price for Trump’s blatant undemocratic act should be his being struck from standing as president.
Undemocratic act, please explain.
A) Still publicly claiming the election was rigged.
B) Publicly claiming a significant majority of Americans also believe the election was rigged.
And you see that has undemocratic, questioning something.
He’s not questioning. He’s making an objective statement.
The 1 million dollars spent by Mrs Clinton on the dossier was also an objective statement then.
Let’s not skirt around here - is it democratic to claim an election was rigged? And is it democratic to invent a figure and claim that they also know an election was rigged?
Freedom of speach or to question is democratic, inventing Russia got Mr trump potus and then pushing to impeach the guy is blatantly undemocratic on the American people.
Once again, he’s not questioning. He’s making a statement of fact - one that’s been disproven repeatedly.
And the 82% claim can’t be backed up anywhere.
https://www.wral.com/amp/21316494/
And Mrs Clinton paid 1 million dollars for a dossier of fiction claiming it to be factual that Russia put Mr trump into potus and wanted the guy impeached, thankfully they realised it was a piece of expensive dog doo, an undemocratic act trying to overturn the result. She actually went out her way in an act of treason to undemocraticly remove a sitting president. And Mr trump has not even presented a dossier.
Still trying to divert onto Clinton - why? Is it because you know that Trump’s statement was undemocratic horse-shit?
She went out her way and lied to overturn the result of the election with a 1 million dollar treasonous act, what if Mrs Clinton did get her way and Mr trump was impeached would that of been democratic.?
You seem unwilling to discuss Trump’s statement. Why is that?
I have discussed it, questioning something is not undemocratic in my opinion.
Now actually attempting to overturn the result and spending 1 million dollars to get it done is undemocratic and treasonous in my opinion.
And you are saying that is not undemocratic.
I haven’t made any statement about Clinton - don’t invent things.
And Trump (once again because you don’t seem to understand) isn’t questioning the 2020 result - he’s outright claiming it was rigged. And also claiming that a large majority of Americans agree.
You’re lying as badly as Trump.
Outright claiming, freedom of speech and to question is not afforded to Mr trump in your book, he just needs to shut up cuz his words are undemocratic.
Lol
Do you support his blatant untruth?
Yes I support anyone's freedom of speech and to question.
So despite the fact that it’s been repeatedly proven that the election wasn’t rigged, you support someone insisting that it was? (Not questioning - outright stating)
And despite 30% of *republicans* believing that it was rigged, you think it’s acceptable to claim that 82% of Americans feel that way?
Would you support Guy Verhofstadt stating publicly that a majority of the U.K. wish to rejoin the EU? Or Corbyn claiming That the 2017/2019 elections were rigged?
I don't deal with whataboutisms just the truth and facts.
And since we know that Trump isn’t telling the truth, nor discussing facts, how do you square that circle?
Do you think republicans have a responsibility to call Trump out on his lies?
It has not been found what he said from his free speech has not been proven either way. It might be the truth have you considered that.
It’s already been proven as lie - as the link I provided earlier eloquently demonstrated. That’s the whole point.
unfounded. If you can't see it is a lynch of Mr trump for the past 8 years you really need to open your eye.
Ah, I see. You don’t actually care about the truth or facts at all.
We got there in the end "The truth is he said it and the fact is they will do anything to shut him up. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Trump still claiming the election was rigged. And also claiming that 82% of the country ‘understand’ that it was rigged. Seriously America, how can you sit back and accept that? It might be 82% of his wonky minded friends but I seriously doubt the majority of the population believes it. He's just met with Orban, from Hungary and he's reporting that there'll be no expenditure on Ukraine
It’s not about who believes it though - America’s lauded freedom of speech allows him to stand up and say that undemocratic nonsense, whilst hoping to run for president. How can that be allowed?
You don't agree with freedom of speech for everyone, I am the same you can keep it, give me freedom to question any day.
I agree with freedom of speech, but not freedom from consequence.
The price for Trump’s blatant undemocratic act should be his being struck from standing as president.
Undemocratic act, please explain.
A) Still publicly claiming the election was rigged.
B) Publicly claiming a significant majority of Americans also believe the election was rigged.
And you see that has undemocratic, questioning something.
He’s not questioning. He’s making an objective statement.
The 1 million dollars spent by Mrs Clinton on the dossier was also an objective statement then.
Let’s not skirt around here - is it democratic to claim an election was rigged? And is it democratic to invent a figure and claim that they also know an election was rigged?
Freedom of speach or to question is democratic, inventing Russia got Mr trump potus and then pushing to impeach the guy is blatantly undemocratic on the American people.
Once again, he’s not questioning. He’s making a statement of fact - one that’s been disproven repeatedly.
And the 82% claim can’t be backed up anywhere.
https://www.wral.com/amp/21316494/
And Mrs Clinton paid 1 million dollars for a dossier of fiction claiming it to be factual that Russia put Mr trump into potus and wanted the guy impeached, thankfully they realised it was a piece of expensive dog doo, an undemocratic act trying to overturn the result. She actually went out her way in an act of treason to undemocraticly remove a sitting president. And Mr trump has not even presented a dossier.
Still trying to divert onto Clinton - why? Is it because you know that Trump’s statement was undemocratic horse-shit?
She went out her way and lied to overturn the result of the election with a 1 million dollar treasonous act, what if Mrs Clinton did get her way and Mr trump was impeached would that of been democratic.?
You seem unwilling to discuss Trump’s statement. Why is that?
I have discussed it, questioning something is not undemocratic in my opinion.
Now actually attempting to overturn the result and spending 1 million dollars to get it done is undemocratic and treasonous in my opinion.
And you are saying that is not undemocratic.
I haven’t made any statement about Clinton - don’t invent things.
And Trump (once again because you don’t seem to understand) isn’t questioning the 2020 result - he’s outright claiming it was rigged. And also claiming that a large majority of Americans agree.
You’re lying as badly as Trump.
Outright claiming, freedom of speech and to question is not afforded to Mr trump in your book, he just needs to shut up cuz his words are undemocratic.
Lol
Do you support his blatant untruth?
Yes I support anyone's freedom of speech and to question.
So despite the fact that it’s been repeatedly proven that the election wasn’t rigged, you support someone insisting that it was? (Not questioning - outright stating)
And despite 30% of *republicans* believing that it was rigged, you think it’s acceptable to claim that 82% of Americans feel that way?
Would you support Guy Verhofstadt stating publicly that a majority of the U.K. wish to rejoin the EU? Or Corbyn claiming That the 2017/2019 elections were rigged?
I don't deal with whataboutisms just the truth and facts.
And since we know that Trump isn’t telling the truth, nor discussing facts, how do you square that circle?
Do you think republicans have a responsibility to call Trump out on his lies?
It has not been found what he said from his free speech has not been proven either way. It might be the truth have you considered that.
It’s already been proven as lie - as the link I provided earlier eloquently demonstrated. That’s the whole point.
unfounded. If you can't see it is a lynch of Mr trump for the past 8 years you really need to open your eye.
Ah, I see. You don’t actually care about the truth or facts at all.
We got there in the end
The truth is he said it and the fact is they will do anything to shut him up."Like I said, you don’t care about the truth, only partisanship. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Trump still claiming the election was rigged. And also claiming that 82% of the country ‘understand’ that it was rigged. Seriously America, how can you sit back and accept that? It might be 82% of his wonky minded friends but I seriously doubt the majority of the population believes it. He's just met with Orban, from Hungary and he's reporting that there'll be no expenditure on Ukraine
It’s not about who believes it though - America’s lauded freedom of speech allows him to stand up and say that undemocratic nonsense, whilst hoping to run for president. How can that be allowed?
You don't agree with freedom of speech for everyone, I am the same you can keep it, give me freedom to question any day.
I agree with freedom of speech, but not freedom from consequence.
The price for Trump’s blatant undemocratic act should be his being struck from standing as president.
Undemocratic act, please explain.
A) Still publicly claiming the election was rigged.
B) Publicly claiming a significant majority of Americans also believe the election was rigged.
And you see that has undemocratic, questioning something.
He’s not questioning. He’s making an objective statement.
The 1 million dollars spent by Mrs Clinton on the dossier was also an objective statement then.
Let’s not skirt around here - is it democratic to claim an election was rigged? And is it democratic to invent a figure and claim that they also know an election was rigged?
Freedom of speach or to question is democratic, inventing Russia got Mr trump potus and then pushing to impeach the guy is blatantly undemocratic on the American people.
Once again, he’s not questioning. He’s making a statement of fact - one that’s been disproven repeatedly.
And the 82% claim can’t be backed up anywhere.
https://www.wral.com/amp/21316494/
And Mrs Clinton paid 1 million dollars for a dossier of fiction claiming it to be factual that Russia put Mr trump into potus and wanted the guy impeached, thankfully they realised it was a piece of expensive dog doo, an undemocratic act trying to overturn the result. She actually went out her way in an act of treason to undemocraticly remove a sitting president. And Mr trump has not even presented a dossier.
Still trying to divert onto Clinton - why? Is it because you know that Trump’s statement was undemocratic horse-shit?
She went out her way and lied to overturn the result of the election with a 1 million dollar treasonous act, what if Mrs Clinton did get her way and Mr trump was impeached would that of been democratic.?
You seem unwilling to discuss Trump’s statement. Why is that?
I have discussed it, questioning something is not undemocratic in my opinion.
Now actually attempting to overturn the result and spending 1 million dollars to get it done is undemocratic and treasonous in my opinion.
And you are saying that is not undemocratic.
I haven’t made any statement about Clinton - don’t invent things.
And Trump (once again because you don’t seem to understand) isn’t questioning the 2020 result - he’s outright claiming it was rigged. And also claiming that a large majority of Americans agree.
You’re lying as badly as Trump.
Outright claiming, freedom of speech and to question is not afforded to Mr trump in your book, he just needs to shut up cuz his words are undemocratic.
Lol
Do you support his blatant untruth?
Yes I support anyone's freedom of speech and to question.
So despite the fact that it’s been repeatedly proven that the election wasn’t rigged, you support someone insisting that it was? (Not questioning - outright stating)
And despite 30% of *republicans* believing that it was rigged, you think it’s acceptable to claim that 82% of Americans feel that way?
Would you support Guy Verhofstadt stating publicly that a majority of the U.K. wish to rejoin the EU? Or Corbyn claiming That the 2017/2019 elections were rigged?
I don't deal with whataboutisms just the truth and facts.
And since we know that Trump isn’t telling the truth, nor discussing facts, how do you square that circle?
Do you think republicans have a responsibility to call Trump out on his lies?
It has not been found what he said from his free speech has not been proven either way. It might be the truth have you considered that.
It’s already been proven as lie - as the link I provided earlier eloquently demonstrated. That’s the whole point.
unfounded. If you can't see it is a lynch of Mr trump for the past 8 years you really need to open your eye.
Ah, I see. You don’t actually care about the truth or facts at all.
We got there in the end
The truth is he said it and the fact is they will do anything to shut him up.
Like I said, you don’t care about the truth, only partisanship. "I just said, the truth is he said it, what is this other truth you keep going on about. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"America have Freedom of Speech laws. He can say what he likes and it can be debunked using facts. Calling for him to be barred because of what he says is as undemocratic as it can get "You are right… 1st amendments freedom of speech….. but your freedom of speech doesn’t give the right to defame anyone… Last I checked… that cost him so far 88 million dollars! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
