Donald Trump running for president

California strikes again...

thb honest I don't think he was guilty of murder, but following the law manslaughter for sure!!!
 
thebigt said:
the thing I am defending is the conservative viewpoint...I am 100% against the liberal agenda.
Click to expand...

And that's fine to be against the liberal agenda, but if you're for and still defending Trump, then you've sacrificed your conservative stance to do so. Saying that Hillary is trash is easy, but to keep defending what passes for a Republican politician these days is compromising what you claim to believe in.
 
Aleksandar37 said:
And that's fine to be against the liberal agenda, but if you're for and still defending Trump, then you've sacrificed your conservative stance to do so. Saying that Hillary is trash is easy, but to keep defending what passes for a Republican politician these days is compromising what you claim to believe in.
Click to expand...

trump is the 1st conservative to stand up to the liberals in a long time, it's what got him elected-that plus hrc being a total pos....
 
thebigt said:
trump is the 1st conservative to stand up to the liberals in a long time, it's what got him elected-that plus hrc being a total pos....
Click to expand...

He's not conservative and even if he was, conservatives stand up to liberals all the time. People easily fooled and manipulated is what got him elected. People who got upset about emails, but are alright with pedophiles and sexual assault are what got him elected. People were focused on non-issues like gender and Target bathrooms and were scared of boogeyman crap, that they didn't realize they were supporting the real threat. How many sexual assaults have continued to occur since Trump was elected? Now tell me what percent of those were transgender.

Conservatives are only conservative when it benefits them and they can claim to be better than everyone else.
 
Aleksandar37 said:
He's not conservative and even if he was, conservatives stand up to liberals all the time. People easily fooled and manipulated is what got him elected. People who got upset about emails, but are alright with pedophiles and sexual assault are what got him elected. People were focused on non-issues like gender and Target bathrooms and were scared of boogeyman crap, that they didn't realize they were supporting the real threat. How many sexual assaults have continued to occur since Trump was elected? Now tell me what percent of those were transgender.

Conservatives are only conservative when it benefits them and they can claim to be better than everyone else.
Click to expand...

dude, you are rambling on...I am a conservative [yesterday, today and tomorrow] and you seem to be the one who thinks you are better than me?
 
Aleksandar37 said:
Just because you can't dispute what I said, doesn't make it rambling.
Click to expand...

lol...there is nothing to dispute. you have your opinion and I have mine. we just choose to disagree!!!

dispute is a worthless waste of time in this thread, no one's opinion has been changed or ever will be, lol.

what this thread IS good for is conversation, to see others thoughts on different topics-hell every once in awhile we actually agree...:laugh:
 
youngandfree said:
Talking according to who Brian Ross at ABC? He got suspended for 4 weeks for his fake news report about Flynn.

Invalid Link Removed
Click to expand...

So you're disputing that he's cooperating with the investigation and talking? Should we also believe Hillary is innocent if I can show one article that lied about her? It's interesting that you're not giving credit to ABC for doing the right thing.
 
Aleksandar37 said:
So you're disputing that he's cooperating with the investigation and talking? Should we also believe Hillary is innocent if I can show one article that lied about her? It's interesting that you're not giving credit to ABC for doing the right thing.
Click to expand...

Once again putting words in my mouth.

No its just comical that your post came out after the "shocking headline" that Flynn was going to give up the dirt on the Trump family. Why should I give credit to them for anything when they let that story go out to begin with?
 
youngandfree said:
Once again putting words in my mouth.

No its just comical that your post came out after the "shocking headline" that Flynn was going to give up the dirt on the Trump family. Why should I give credit to them for anything when they let that story go out to begin with?
Click to expand...

Again, what is incorrect about my post?
 
youngandfree said:
Your implication is wrong, just like I said. You posted long before ABC issued the correction, when that was the only storyline about Flynn for the majority of the day.
Click to expand...

I didn't get my information from ABC. Did you not see that there were multiple news agencies reporting that Flynn was cooperating? It was all over the place aside from ABC adding in the false information about what he was actually saying.

I posted two sentences: #1 Flynn is talking. He was and still is. Do you dispute that? #2 I can't wait to hear what he has to say? I did and still do.

I have no control over how you're interpreting what I posted, but if you're going to get this upset over it, maybe ask me what I was implying instead of guessing. I'm happy to clarify. Flynn won't be the direct line to Trump even if he does claim that Trump gave him orders. The incorrect story by ABC is irrelevant to my post. I do not and will never get my information from ABC, CBS, NBC, or CNN for future reference.
 
sen Feinstein says case can be made for obstruction against trump...I don't think anyone doubts that if dems take control of the house at mid term elections trump will be impeached...this will be a mistake I believe dems will pay dearly for, mike pence is waiting in the wings.
 
Aleksandar37 said:
I didn't get my information from ABC. Did you not see that there were multiple news agencies reporting that Flynn was cooperating? It was all over the place aside from ABC adding in the false information about what he was actually saying.

I posted two sentences: #1 Flynn is talking. He was and still is. Do you dispute that? #2 I can't wait to hear what he has to say? I did and still do.

I have no control over how you're interpreting what I posted, but if you're going to get this upset over it, maybe ask me what I was implying instead of guessing. I'm happy to clarify. Flynn won't be the direct line to Trump even if he does claim that Trump gave him orders. The incorrect story by ABC is irrelevant to my post. I do not and will never get my information from ABC, CBS, NBC, or CNN for future reference.
Click to expand...

You're right, every other news agency reported on the ABC story.
 
thebigt said:
sen Feinstein says case can be made for obstruction against trump...I don't think anyone doubts that if dems take control of the house at mid term elections trump will be impeached...this will be a mistake I believe dems will pay dearly for, mike pence is waiting in the wings.
Click to expand...

I think they're already looking past impeachment. Obstruction is one of the charges they got Clinton on though.
 
mike pence is a political operator who know how the legislature works, and doesn't make political blunders....he also doesn't have any personal baggage he can be attacked on.

the dems have gotten away with a campaign of attacking trump on his personality, they won't be able to use this tactic against pence.

imo, the dems would be stupid to try and get rid of trump...be careful what you wish for!!!
 
youngandfree said:
How am I lying? No other news agency anywhere reprinted the fake ABC story?
Click to expand...

You're changing your story now. First you said that "every other news agency reported on the ABC story." I'm saying that's beyond a lie because it makes absolutely no sense. This was a major story that Flynn was finally cooperating with the investigation.

If you're now asking me if any other agency anywhere reprinted the fake ABC story, I would answer probably, but it's a guess and I don't really care or see the point of asking me that. Still not sure why you're arguing ABC when I have said that's not where I got my information from and many other news agencies ran the story independently that Flynn was simply cooperating with the investigation. Seriously who the **** even gets their news from ABC except 90 year old grandmothers?
 
thebigt said:
mike pence is a political operator who know how the legislature works, and doesn't make political blunders....he also doesn't have any personal baggage he can be attacked on.

the dems have gotten away with a campaign of attacking trump on his personality, they won't be able to use this tactic against pence.

imo, the dems would be stupid to try and get rid of trump...be careful what you wish for!!!
Click to expand...

I've lost count of how many male Republicans have gotten caught either hiring a male prostitute, cheating on their wife with a guy, or trying to have sex in a public toilet with a guy. And every one of them was over the top against gay rights like Pence. I'm not exactly going to be shocked if Pence gets caught doing the same lol.

Union workers are going to be in for a rough time if Pence has to step up.
 
Aleksandar37 said:
You're changing your story now. First you said that "every other news agency reported on the ABC story." I'm saying that's beyond a lie because it makes absolutely no sense. This was a major story that Flynn was finally cooperating with the investigation.

If you're now asking me if any other agency anywhere reprinted the fake ABC story, I would answer probably, but it's a guess and I don't really care or see the point of asking me that. Still not sure why you're arguing ABC when I have said that's not where I got my information from and many other news agencies ran the story independently that Flynn was simply cooperating with the investigation. Seriously who the **** even gets their news from ABC except 90 year old grandmothers?
Click to expand...
Invalid Link RemovedInvalid Link RemovedInvalid Link RemovedInvalid Link Removed

Funny here's a page of different agencies reporting what Brian Ross lied about last friday. This is just page 1 of the Google search.
 
youngandfree said:
Funny here's a page of different agencies reporting what Brian Ross lied about last friday. This is just page 1 of the Google search.
Click to expand...

Is English not your first language? ABC lied about what Flynn was actually saying. And I agreed that it was quite possible that other new agencies ran with that story, but not all of them and that all came after they reported that he was talking period! The fact that he was talking is what my post is about. My post mentions nothing about what he is actually saying and in fact says that I can't wait to hear what he says!

Yelling fake news only works on the morons who need to be told what their opinion is, which you have proven time and time again. Flynn is cooperating. Get over it.
 
Aleksandar37 said:
Is English not your first language? ABC lied about what Flynn was actually saying. And I agreed that it was quite possible that other new agencies ran with that story, but not all of them and that all came after they reported that he was talking period! The fact that he was talking is what my post is about. My post mentions nothing about what he is actually saying and in fact says that I can't wait to hear what he says!

Yelling fake news only works on the morons who need to be told what their opinion is, which you have proven time and time again. Flynn is cooperating. Get over it.
Click to expand...

Keep telling yourself that
 
Aleksandar37 said:
I've listened to the actual tape of her discussion on the girl who was raped. Yet again, she was an attorney who was forced to represent a client because like it or not, the Constitution gives everybody a right to an attorney and she was not laughing at the girl or about the rape.

There is so much horrible crap that she has actually done, relying on the fake facts only makes it easier for people to defend her. Everything else you said I agree with though.
Click to expand...

I know this is old but catching up. Hitlery was not forced to represent a rapist client, she said in the interview she only did it as a favor to the judge to defend him because he asked her.
 
Anyone barfing over taxes yet?

Whatever happened to filling out a simply a piece of card?

Invalid Link Removed
 
ax1 said:
I know this is old but catching up. Hitlery was not forced to represent a rapist client, she said in the interview she only did it as a favor to the judge to defend him because he asked her.
Click to expand...

Nope. She was appointed and tried to get out of it, but it was up to the judge. Again, she was an attorney. There is a constitution.
 
Aleksandar37 said:
Nope. She was appointed and tried to get out of it, but it was up to the judge. Again, she was an attorney. There is a constitution.
Click to expand...

I did get it wrong. I re-listened to the interview, a prosecutor asked her for the rapist, not a judge.

The rapist wanted a woman attorney. The prosecutor asked Hitlery if she would do it as a favor for him (the rapist.)

So I was wrong she didnt do it as a favor to the Judge, she did it as a favor to the rapist so its actually worse. This comes from the actual interview with Hitlery. Hitlery said this.

At least Hitlery thought the child rapist case was fascinating knowingly he was completely guilty, so she slaughtered thousands of children afterwards but thats another story :)
 
ax1 said:
I did get it wrong. I re-listened to the interview, a prosecutor asked her for the rapist, not a judge.

The rapist wanted a woman attorney. The prosecutor asked Hitlery if she would do it as a favor for him (the rapist.)

So I was wrong she didnt do it as a favor to the Judge, she did it as a favor to the rapist so its actually worse. This comes from the actual interview with Hitlery. Hitlery said this.

At least Hitlery thought the child rapist case was fascinating knowingly he was completely guilty, so she slaughtered thousands of children afterwards but thats another story :)
Click to expand...

Where are you getting this information from? The rapist wanted a female attorney. The judge appointed her and another attorney told her that the judge appointed her. Please link the interview because it's not at all matching up with what happened.
 
It is interesting to me that Republicans are fine with child rape if their candidate actually committed the rape, but get all upset when a Democrat lawyer follows the constitution to defend one.
 
Aleksandar37 said:
Where are you getting this information from? The rapist wanted a female attorney. The judge appointed her and another attorney told her that the judge appointed her. Please link the interview because it's not at all matching up with what happened.
Click to expand...

The information came from Hitlery, she said it. Its on audio. The audio recording is on youtube titled "The Hillary Clinton Tapes."

I have to go by her own direct account of the story over some 3rd party info.
 
Aleksandar37 said:
It is interesting to me that Republicans are fine with child rape if their candidate actually committed the rape, but get all upset when a Democrat lawyer follows the constitution to defend one.
Click to expand...

I dont have a problem with her doing her public office position, the only thing on my mind is that she isnt the defender of woman's rights that some of her supporters claim her to be, and thats not based off this rape case alone, she had mass murdered many women the rape case is one of her petty hyposhyts.

Now if your talking about that guy running for office down south, I know he has accusations, he technically is proven until guilty but I dont give a crap about these filthy mass murdering Republican slimeballs anyways (no not talking about the average republican voter bigt :) )
 
ax1 said:
The information came from Hitlery, she said it. Its on audio. The audio recording is on youtube titled "The Hillary Clinton Tapes."

I have to go by her own direct account of the story over some 3rd party info.
Click to expand...

You might want to listen to them another time. The "him" doesn't refer to the rapist regarding who she's do a favor for. She also doesn't explain the entire situation in that interview of what led up to the case and instead jumps into the case itself. The prosecutor, Mahlon Gibson, has also been interviewed and said he was the one that recommended Clinton to the judge who then appointed her. None of this is coming from a 3rd party interpretation.
 
Aleksandar37 said:
You might want to listen to them another time. The "him" doesn't refer to the rapist regarding who she's do a favor for. She also doesn't explain the entire situation in that interview of what led up to the case and instead jumps into the case itself. The prosecutor, Mahlon Gibson, has also been interviewed and said he was the one that recommended Clinton to the judge who then appointed her. None of this is coming from a 3rd party interpretation.
Click to expand...

He may have recommended Clinton to the judge but that also may have been after he asked her first, in which she went along. You are right that she may not have detailed the whole story. Doesnt change the way I feel about her and women either way to be honest, as a famous saying goes, "what difference does it make!!!!" LOL
 
ax1 said:
He may have recommended Clinton to the judge but that also may have been after he asked her first, in which she went along. You are right that she may not have detailed the whole story. Doesnt change the way I feel about her and women either way to be honest, as a famous saying goes, "what difference does it make!!!!" LOL
Click to expand...

The only reason I'm making a big deal about it is because there isn't a need for any false stories of false spins of stories. She and her husband have both done so much horrible crap, I would like people to focus on spreading those stories that actually happened. Fake stories only create further divisions between two sides that both suck and we all get screwed. People also seem to forget that just a few years ago the Trumps and Clintons were buddies and I have no doubt they will again in the future after it no longer benefits them both to pretend.
 
Aleksandar37 said:
The only reason I'm making a big deal about it is because there isn't a need for any false stories of false spins of stories. She and her husband have both done so much horrible crap, I would like people to focus on spreading those stories that actually happened. Fake stories only create further divisions between two sides that both suck and we all get screwed. People also seem to forget that just a few years ago the Trumps and Clintons were buddies and I have no doubt they will again in the future after it no longer benefits them both to pretend.
Click to expand...

This rape case actually happened, and this defender of woman didnt take a stand knowingly he was completely guilty of a gruesome act.

I think it tells alot about her true character regardless if she was just doing a job or not. Thats just how I see it. I dont understand why you see it as so fake, although I do agree with you there is a much bigger picture to look at such as their policies. Psychological evaluation (historical choices) needs to be part of the equation though with any leader, plus I find it interesting.
 
ax1 said:
This rape case actually happened, and this defender of woman didnt take a stand knowingly he was completely guilty of a gruesome act.

I think it tells alot about her true character regardless if she was just doing a job or not. Thats just how I see it. I dont understand why you see it as so fake, although I do agree with you there is a much bigger picture to look at such as their policies. Psychological evaluation (historical choices) needs to be part of the equation though with any leader, plus I find it interesting.
Click to expand...

The rape case actually happened. I'm not questioning that at all. It was 1975 and she was still a very young lawyer who didn't have any leverage to say no, except to walk away from being a lawyer forever. So yes, she had a choice if you want to be black and white about it. The thing I don't agree with is Republicans using it as an example to attack her because it's hypocritical. First, they claim to believe in the Constitution, but they cherry-pick the parts that work for them the same way they cherry-pick the bible. The most vile creatures to walk through our society are all guaranteed an attorney by the Constitution. Second, they attack her for doing her job as an attorney to defend a rapist, but continue to look the other way on child rapists like Roy Moore. Even Trump has been accused of child rape. When it comes to Hillary it's guilty with no trial, but with fellow Republicans it's excuses and more excuses and let's not rush to judgement. Democrats do it too. I'm sure there are plenty that stood by Bill Clinton during his impeachment that are now calling for the same of Trump.

So no, none of the actual case is fake, but the spin on it has been. She never laughs about the plaintiff. That's a straight up lie. She laughs about how ridiculous the system is and how others completely messed up the case. A few of the times it's not even her laugh, but the interviewer.
 
Aleksandar37 said:
The only reason I'm making a big deal about it is because there isn't a need for any false stories of false spins of stories. She and her husband have both done so much horrible crap, I would like people to focus on spreading those stories that actually happened. Fake stories only create further divisions between two sides that both suck and we all get screwed. People also seem to forget that just a few years ago the Trumps and Clintons were buddies and I have no doubt they will again in the future after it no longer benefits them both to pretend.
Click to expand...

give us a few examples of those stories that you find so horrible. I would really like to hear them.
 
Aleksandar37 said:
The rape case actually happened. I'm not questioning that at all. It was 1975 and she was still a very young lawyer who didn't have any leverage to say no, except to walk away from being a lawyer forever. So yes, she had a choice if you want to be black and white about it.
Click to expand...

Why was she asked if she could do it as a favor then and why would she say that? Why didnt she say she was appointed? If she was appointed, then she wouldnt be asked after she was appointed, it would only be before. These people all know each other, the prosecutor asked her first as a favor (to the rapist requesting a woman the way I interpret it) and then recommended her to the judge, no other order would make logical sense to me. Not telling the whole story in that interview doest seem fitting, she was very specific about a favor, not a demand. She had a choice.

These people in the courts, lawyers, prosecutors and a majority of the Judges dont give a damn about the Constitution either just like Republicans they use it when its convenient. They most are oath breakers.
 
Aleksandar37 said:
The most vile creatures to walk through our society are all guaranteed an attorney by the Constitution.
Click to expand...

6th Amendment
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

So yes, Constitutionally that gives the defendant the right to an attorney, but how does that exactly apply to an attorney anyways? Maybe thats why they ask first before recommend and appoint such as in Hitleries case back in '75?
 
ax1 said:
6th Amendment
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

So yes, Constitutionally that gives the defendant the right to an attorney, but how does that exactly apply to an attorney anyways? Maybe thats why they ask first before recommend and appoint such as in Hitleries case back in '75?
Click to expand...

I don't understand the question. Are you asking why attorneys do it?
 
ax1 said:
6th Amendment
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

So yes, Constitutionally that gives the defendant the right to an attorney, but how does that exactly apply to an attorney anyways? Maybe thats why they ask first before recommend and appoint such as in Hitleries case back in '75?
Click to expand...

I don't see where it entitles a defendant to request a woman to defend him/her, do you?
 
Aleksandar37 said:
T
So no, none of the actual case is fake, but the spin on it has been. She never laughs about the plaintiff. That's a straight up lie. She laughs about how ridiculous the system is and how others completely messed up the case. A few of the times it's not even her laugh, but the interviewer.
Click to expand...

She was and still IS the system, lol! If she wants to point at whats ridiculous she needs to start with a mirror.
 
Aleksandar37 said:
I don't understand the question. Are you asking why attorneys do it?
Click to expand...

For example, if a Jewish lawyer was appointed to defend a Nazi to Holocaust crimes, can he ethically object? Does the Constitution force that attorney to fulfill this duty? I dont really see it there....I can guess there are state regulations that specify these issues but thats not the Constitution.
 
thebigt said:
give us a few examples of those stories that you find so horrible. I would really like to hear them.
Click to expand...

Most recently, interfering in this last election. I'm not a huge fan of Bernie, but she should have let the votes speak and not pulled her behind-the-scenes crap. Beyond that I don't like her role in the wars under Obama and even her influence in the Bosnian and Kosovo action under her husband, so pick any of those.
 
thebigt said:
I don't see where it entitles a defendant to request a woman to defend him/her, do you?
Click to expand...

It doesn't. That part is not normal and is the judge overreaching. The only reason of why I could think a judge would allow it is if they don't want to risk a mistrial or have the defendant make up excuses until he gets the type of attorney anyway. The judge might have been trying to save money and time. Or maybe he/she was just a bad judge. These are just guesses.
 
ax1 said:
For example, if a Jewish lawyer was appointed to defend a Nazi to Holocaust crimes, can he ethically object? Does the Constitution force that attorney to fulfill this duty? I dont really see it there....I can guess there are state regulations that specify these issues but thats not the Constitution.
Click to expand...

It's probably regulated more locally or even by the state bar. I'm sure there is a way under extreme circumstances and if you have a reasonable judge, but it's probably not very common when it comes to violent crimes. If you go against it anyway, then you the lawyer gets contempt and a fine or jail time.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top