Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 81 to 120 of 229

Thread: 2016 Election Night: Trump or Clinton?

  1. #81
    The Dude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    Leeds
    Posts
    904
    I'm cutting myself as I type this.

  2. #82
    Queen of Extreme Irishsara's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    5,489
    Quote Originally Posted by GNR711 View Post
    At least have the decency to re-word your arguments so a simple google search doesn't blow your cover of copying the crux of your arguments from other websites.. if this is the extent of your paralegal skills & Ivy league education, it is no wonder you are still working at the neighborhood joint.
    Yeah, so when most people come to conclusions they do so based on facts instead of nothing. Basing my argument on multiple sources is called research. When you said “Trump is far from the first successful business man in the white house, many before him, and many to come have business holdings that span the globe.” I thought that maybe I was wrong and that you had based your argument on facts that I was unaware of (gave you too much credit as it turns out). I looked into it before I made my comment. I searched JSTOR, Law Reviews, and a few other databases to check historical and scholarly sources. I looked at a bunch of Presidents going back to the early 1800s. No President that I was able to find had a working business while he was president. So when you make a comment based on nothing but bullshit because it is something you “think”. Heck even George Washington’s Gristmill and Distillery didn’t start up until a year after he left the presidency. The closest I could find was President Harding being one of the investors of Harding Publishing Co. but he was no longer involved in operations after he joined the senate in 1914 and had divested himself of the majority of the stock to fund his presidential run before taking office and was completely divested by his business partner even before he left office. He was never the benefit of a tax break or Emolument from the State of Ohio nor the Federal Government when he was President.

    No president in the history of the United States has ever been a beneficiary of their global business which received tax breaks or emoluments. Ever. You are either wrong or lying. I am not sure which.



    Quote Originally Posted by GNR711 View Post
    I don't see where you are going with the Obama quip, yeah he had the senate and congress, yeah the republicans took over, did they impeach him ? No. Were they clamoring to make Joe Biden President ? No. So if we are to apply your Ivy league logic to...trump pence / the republicans, the Donald is going no-where while mike pence twiddles his thumbs for 8 years.
    Obama had the stunning support of the majority of Democrats when he ran for President. Almost every democratic member of the house and senate endorsed him. Obama was the standard bearer of his party supported by two pillars of the Democratic Party in his cabinet and his election. The previous democratic president even endorsed him. Obama was lock step with his party, their politics and it’s principles.

    Trump is a political outsider, renegade, who often castigated his party both before and after the election. Trump has already had very public disagreements with Paul Ryan. Powerful Republicans like Jason Chaffetz, Lindsey Graham, John McCain, Susan Collins and Ben Sasse all refused to even endorse Trump for President. For example, John Thune, the third-ranking Republican in the Senate, called on Donald Trump to step aside for Mike Pence even after the convention. Vice President Mike Pence is Republican Party loyalist with all of Trump’s traditional conservative views and none of Trump’s rebellion, baggage, potential liberalism, deal making or compromise.

    Obama and Trump are not comparable.

    Honestly, I think it is more likely that the Democrats would prefer a President Trump over a President Pence than the Republicans will. It doesn’t mean that ether party wouldn’t use the process to leverage Trump politically though. Impeachment is a political solution to a political problem. The House and the Senate could make public impeachable offenses, discover high crimes and misdemeanors and bring a fantastic amount of pressure on Trump but they will only impeach him if there is political benefit. It doesn’t mean that Trump isn’t extremely impeachable. None of these points change the fact that the Emoluments Clauses are things or that Trump is full of conflicts of interest but only immune from a small part of US law.

    Quote Originally Posted by GNR711 View Post
    There is no doubt Bill and Hill would not just continue the pay to play operation, but greatly expand it's scope, foreign governments and big business were pouring money into the foundation in anticipation of this being the pro-forma way of acquiring direct access to the oval office,they were setting the stage so they could PAY TO PLAY.
    Wait, didn’t the Clintons announce that the Global inititave would have been shut down and the Clinton Foundation itself would have been banned from receiving foreign or corporate donations if Clinton would have been elected president?

    Again, I’m ignoring most of the rest of what you say because you are clearly ignorant of how impeachment works and the basic high school civics of it. Here is just one example.

    Quote Originally Posted by GNR711 View Post
    Why should someone who is being investigated by the FBI even be allowed to RUN for President ?
    Donald Trump is being investigated for criminal tax evasion by the State of New York. Should he have also been barred? I mean Trump clearly violated the laws governing charities and is under serious investigation. Isn’t that the same thing? Of Course it shouldn’t have barred him from running for President. You are innocent until PROVEN guilty. You are guaranteed the rights to due process in the 5th and 14th amendments of the Constitution. The same applied to Clinton. It would be unconstitutional to bar someone from running for office without constitutionally guaranteed due process.

    Does that make sense?

  3. #83
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    419
    I see the dude is back to ruining message boards again.

    Anyways...

    I am SICK of seeing Libtards raving about how Trump "didn't really win" the election because he did not win the popular vote.

    Here is a take that I feel covers this and thensome...

    Trump won the popular vote in 31 states to her 19 and DC. 62% to her 38%.

    Trump led in the total popular vote for all states except California.

    Hillary won California 5,860,714 to Trump’s 3,151,821. 61.6% to 33.1%
    exclusive of the other candidates.

    Thus California gave Hillary the popular vote for all states as
    claimed by the Democrats and their media stooges.

    But deduct her California vote from her national vote leaving her with
    54,978,783, and deduct Trump’s California vote from his national
    total, leaving him with 57,113.976, he wins in a landslide in the
    other 49 states, 51.3% to her 48.7%.

    So, in effect, Hillary was elected president of California and Trump was
    elected president of the rest of the country by a substantial margin.

    This exemplifies the wisdom of the Electoral College, to prevent the
    vote of any one populace state from overriding the vote of the others.

    Trump’s Campaign Manager, Kellyanne Conway, whose expertise is polling, saw this early on and
    devised her strategy of “6 pathways to the White House”. This meant ignoring California with its huge Democrat majority and
    going after the states that would give him the necessary electoral votes to win, FL, NC, MI, PA, OH, and WI.

  4. #84
    The Dude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    Leeds
    Posts
    904
    Yawn.

  5. #85
    Queen of Extreme Irishsara's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    5,489
    Trump won the election. He just wasn't the choice of the people. He has no mandate (because the majority of people voted against him) and he is plagued by scandals.

    Quote Originally Posted by notslap View Post
    I am SICK of seeing Libtards raving about how Trump "didn't really win" the election because he did not win the popular vote.
    Isn't that like saying Trump's electoral vote victory "came entirely from Texas," because without Texas, Clinton would have won the election?

    But Clinton won by greater popular vote margins in the states she won. This is fact.

    Trump's percentage of the electoral vote is one of the lowest in history. (46th out of a total of 58) among the likes of Jimmy Carter, Nixon and George W Bush (Not a group of Presidents id like to be associated with). His closest modern president was JFK against Nixon which was plagued by scandal in 1960. it is actually a really interesting comparison.

    Personally, I dont know why people feel so insecure to take a shot at Trump's electoral weakness when his legitimacy is so much of a better target. According to the entire intelligence/law enforcement has said Russian government launched a massive, multifaceted operation to sway the outcome of the US presidential election in Donald Trump's favor. Trump openly solicited Russian aide during the election. Donald Trump is Putin's President. That perception is his biggest hurdle to overcome and, so far, his actions have not helped him. Perhaps that will change when he is President and getting better advice.
    Last edited by Irishsara; 01-08-2017 at 11:13 PM.

  6. #86
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    May 2016
    Posts
    15
    Take out California and the numbers are a little different. But hey who's counting.

  7. #87
    Senior Member American Mikey P's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Location
    Boston, MA
    Posts
    938
    I'm still confused how it's Russia's fault that trump won....it was Hillary and the Dems that were writing those email right? Like Russia didn't force them to do that right? Russia exposed the Dems as being shady pricks and now we are suppose to be mad a Russia for sharing the truth? The lost narrative here is what Russia showed us by hacking the emails. The bottom line here is Hillary Clinton ran one of the worst campaigns in modern history and was so bad that A guy like Trump smoked her in the electoral college. We can talk about the popular vote all we want but the election process is based on the electoral college, those are the rules we play with. It's essentially saying if we were playing with nerf footballs we would have won the game instead we have to play with pig skins footballs. Both candidates sucked, and middle America played a bigger role than anyone expected. Time to move on and go forward.

  8. #88
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    May 2016
    Posts
    15
    The assumption now is that they tampered with the votes as well so the the narraative.

  9. #89
    Queen of Extreme Irishsara's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    5,489
    Quote Originally Posted by Fastway View Post
    Take out California and the numbers are a little different. But hey who's counting.
    Why just California, why not take out Texas then? I mean if you took out Texas then Clinton wins the election. Why just California?

    Quote Originally Posted by American Mikey P View Post
    I'm still confused how it's Russia's fault that trump won....it was Hillary and the Dems that were writing those email right? Like Russia didn't force them to do that right? Russia exposed the Dems as being shady pricks and now we are suppose to be mad a Russia for sharing the truth? The lost narrative here is what Russia showed us by hacking the emails. The bottom line here is Hillary Clinton ran one of the worst campaigns in modern history and was so bad that A guy like Trump smoked her in the electoral college. We can talk about the popular vote all we want but the election process is based on the electoral college, those are the rules we play with. It's essentially saying if we were playing with nerf footballs we would have won the game instead we have to play with pig skins footballs. Both candidates sucked, and middle America played a bigger role than anyone expected. Time to move on and go forward.
    Its more then that. Trump had Russia connection in his election team (Paul Manafort worked for Russian-backed Ukrainian politicians and Carter Page, an early foreign policy adviser, who met with members of Russian Intelligence in July 2016 and was investigated by the FBI ). Trump himself has had financial interests in Russia. The hacks enforced a narrative helping Donald Trump. Donald Trump called for a foreign government to hack Hillary Clinton's emails. A government in which the US is geopolitical opposed and currently sanctioning. The problem isnt just the election but rather his legitimacy TODAY, using the election as an argument.

    the Kremlin interfered in the American election to help President Elect Trump. Period.

    Donald Trump is a Russian backed American President. Trump then appoints Michael Flynn (worked for Russia's propaganda organization) Rex Tillerson (awarded the Order of Friendship by Putin in 2013) and Wilbur Ross (linked to the Russian oligarch Viktor Vekselberg) and more. Trump has put together one of the most pro Russian cabinets in history. Trump has a long history of investing in Russia and has a recent history of working with government allied oligarchs before being elected president.

    He didnt smoke Clinton in the electoral college vote as a historical fact (i mean not like she smoked him in the popular vote) he is actually in the bottom 3rd of electoral college victories. https://fivethirtyeight.com/features...n-a-landslide/

  10. #90
    Senior Member American Mikey P's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Location
    Boston, MA
    Posts
    938
    Unless Russia actually hacked the votes. Again the narrative here is that the conetent of the emails exposed Hilary. The intent of HER emails screwed her. I also firmly believe people made their decisions on this election well before the emails Russia apparently hacked. Benghazi was her downfall. Anyone with a brain so her as a scumbag bag. Again the Dems have no one to blame but themselves. This should have been a landslide and they chose her as the candidate to face Trump. Anyone else would have beat him,

  11. #91
    Queen of Extreme Irishsara's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    5,489
    Quote Originally Posted by American Mikey P View Post
    Unless Russia actually hacked the votes. Again the narrative here is that the conetent of the emails exposed Hilary. The intent of HER emails screwed her. I also firmly believe people made their decisions on this election well before the emails Russia apparently hacked. Benghazi was her downfall. Anyone with a brain so her as a scumbag bag. Again the Dems have no one to blame but themselves. This should have been a landslide and they chose her as the candidate to face Trump. Anyone else would have beat him,
    Ha. Seriously. Bengazi? Hahahaha. Really? A CIA annex getting attacked and the death of agents working with the CIA. The CIA was coordinating arms shipments to the jihadist rebels fighting the Syrian regime and Ambassador Christopher Stevens was acting as a main interlocutor between the Obama administration and the rebels based in Benghazi. The thing is Obama used Stevens to try and disarm the libyans to help the Syrans. Stevens was Obama's man on the ground even before he was named abassador. This is why he didnt take Marines (which are the traditional bodyguard of an ambassador but rather CIA agents) Anyone who blames Clinton has no actual grasp of what happened. The CIA fucked up. Do your homework.

    I disagree with your entire reading of the situation. The FBI screwed her and The Russians screwed her. If it is true and the Russians had the Republicans Emails too (and all signs point to that) and since it was shown beyond a reasonable doubt that the FBI used a legally unsafe warrant to access Weiner's emails (also been shown) then it shows that the Russians and the FBI threw the election. In my opinion (and just my opinion, and im more of a moderate than a democrat) Clinton was vulnerable and Joe Biden should have been the candidate but without Comey's groundless accusations and the Russian interference, Clinton would have won the election.

    The fact is, a change of about one percent in Hillary Clinton’s favor in three states would have resulted in Clinton’s election as president by an electoral vote margin of 278-260 for Clinton. This is not a landslide.
    Last edited by Irishsara; 01-09-2017 at 06:28 PM.

  12. #92
    Senior Member American Mikey P's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Location
    Boston, MA
    Posts
    938
    I'm not sure if you were too busy cackling, conducting wikipedia searches, or coming up with condescending remarks like you usual do, instead of just typing simple responses. But I dont believe I put any blame on Clinton for Bengazi, I simply stated it was her downfall. I'm simply talking about the handling of the families that lost lives due to the event and how she handled the situation with the families. I have more ties to the Bengazi situation than you know. And I will leave it at that. Period.

    She screwed herself, those are her emails, those are Dem emails, and they were exposed. She has no one to blame but a the very government she played a huge role in that allowed Russian hacking. The hacking came under an Obama administration. We are constantly under attack wether terrorist, home grown terrorist, or now foreign hacking under this administration that she played a role in creating over the last 8 years. Again her emails. No one to blame but the owners of the emails. Day one when you get a government job....do not discuss govenerment information on public emails and public servers. Day one stuff for any level of government job, state, local , federal, municipal. Her fault she doesn't understand day one entree level protocol. Right there eliminates her from presidency. Doesn't understand how email servers work in 2016. Her fault not Russias, not Trumps, not the GOP, not the FBI her fault.

    You have no statistical proof that the 2nd FBI investigation or thatch wiki leaks caused any change in the polling. You have none. Its all opinion. And based on how off the polls were throughout the entire year, any possible info you find is irrelevant because they were so beyond wrong.

    She lost, the Dems lost, hollywood lost. They ran a bad campaign. It was a disaster. It should have never been close. You can't beat Donald Trump in an election for presidency you better take a long look in the mirror. I don care how many shady scandal investigations you have to go through.

  13. #93
    Queen of Extreme Irishsara's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    5,489
    Quote Originally Posted by American Mikey P View Post
    You have no statistical proof that the 2nd FBI investigation or thatch wiki leaks caused any change in the polling. You have none. Its all opinion. And based on how off the polls were throughout the entire year, any possible info you find is irrelevant because they were so beyond wrong.
    There was plenty of stuff in the election post Morten put together by the democrats which points to the Comey stuff in particular having an effect late polls according to the internal campaign memos. According to those, in the closing week of the election they saw the polls start to flux in four states. 3 of those 4 states cost her the election. It doesnt change the fact that Donald Trump solicited help from the Russians (publicly even) received help from the Russians and later appointed people favored by the Russians. Donald Trump is the Russian's president. The fact remains, Putin ordered the hack to boost Trump's chances and it worked in a very close race. (check FP today).

    I completely disagree on the Benghazi stuff. Completely and totally. The Republicans had the intelligence briefings and made political hay out of something they knew wouldnt come out for years. Ive read the stuff. Ive done the legwork on it. I've called in favors to read stuff from journalists. Ive read emails from sources like Cheryl Bennett. I was super interested in it (and it fit part of the stuff I was really interested in in Iraq/Jordan, which is my primary interest) To put any blame on Clinton at all is foolish. That was electioneering by the Republicans plain and simple. It doesnt change the fact that Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty were CIA agents, for example. It doesnt change the fact that Stevens himself was a CIA asset and that mission had nothing to do with Clinton's State Department. To somehow hang this around Clinton's neck (especially now when we know the truth) just shows a level of unawareness which blows me away.
    Last edited by Irishsara; 01-09-2017 at 08:18 PM.

  14. #94
    Senior Member American Mikey P's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Location
    Boston, MA
    Posts
    938
    I am going to say this for the third and final time....I never blamed Clinton for Benghazi. Please point to my post where I blamed Clinton for Benghazi. You can't because it doesn't exist. Clinton's handling of the families is where the true snake she is is revealed, which I made pretty clear in my second post. I will say this for the second time I have much closer ties and knowledge to the event than I think you realize. Based on the fact that you seem to be the resident local wikipedia expert on the subject, I assumed one would use their common sense to put two and two together that I was referring to her handling of the families that were effected from the incident. Apparently you can't because you are looking to argue wether one believes Clinton is to blame for the whole event, which I am not. Now wether she is at fault for the incident or not, to assume that that entire issue had no effect on her campaign and why some refused to vote for her because of it no matter how minimal her role in the incident was seems to be quite shortsighted on your end. You can be blown away by that statement all you want, Im sure you were blown away on election night too. That incident was the beginning of her political downfall, wether she is to blame or not.

    The Dems can put whatever they want out at this stage any one that believes their polling statistics at this point should be evaluated, because their polls led to a poor campaign strategy costing them the election. The fact still remains those were Clintons emails. The American people have a right to know that she's a shady fuck and she got caught. So if Russia was able to hack the emails under an Obama administration and expose Clinton as scum, well boo hoo.You want to call Trump a Russian President go ahead. No sweat off by back, doesn't change my day to day life. The race should have never been close, she should have never had those emails out there in the first place. The democratic party lost to a fucking clown in a fucking straight out of hollywood comedy election. Live with it. You wanted a soft country where everyone plays and loves each other in a sandbox full of hope, well you got it. Now Russia can hack government emails under your parties administration and make your party the laughing stalk of the world. (Assuming you are a Dem that is)

  15. #95
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    419
    Remember when the Dems cockblocked a push that would have gotten rid of the electoral college in 2012? Good times. Glad that panned out for them.

    Getting mad at Russia for hacking and exposing the Dems emails is like getting mad at Russia for going balls to the wall after ISIS. Like Mikey said they exposed Hillary and the Dems for what they are. Negan could have won an election against Hillary and the Dems after that joke of a campaign. The DNC alone was beyond ridiculous, have the mothers of all the shot felons on stage pushing for stricting gun laws as the main event.


    Quote Originally Posted by Irishsara
    He has no mandate (because the majority of people voted against him) and he is plagued by scandals.
    First off, he lost the popular vote by 3M votes. That does not mean "the majority" of people voted against him. What did happen is "A MAJORITY" of states voted for him.

    but that part of your quote I could care less about....Please, please, please tell me about the scandals that Trump is plagued by. Google your heart out on MSNBC till your fingers turn to dust and show me these scandals.

    then ask me to show some Hillary scandals....

  16. #96
    Queen of Extreme Irishsara's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    5,489
    Quote Originally Posted by notslap View Post
    First off, he lost the popular vote by 3M votes. That does not mean "the majority" of people voted against him. What did happen is "A MAJORITY" of states voted for him.
    That is exactly what that means. The majority of people voted against him. Less people voted for Donald Trump than didnt. He won the election but he did not receive a majority of the votes. The majority of people voted against him.

    Trump received 46% of the vote. This means the Majority of Americans voted against Donald Trump. The previous Presidents (for example) won 51.1 percent (Obama second term) and 53% (Obama First term) and 50.7% (George W. Bush second term). After winning his second term George Bush's White House Press Secretary called winning the popular vote (which he had failed to do the first time) a mandate. This is where I got it from. According to the Bush White House (Bush himself called it political capital), Donald Trump does not have the mandate of the voters because the voters preferred someone else.

    You could, in theory win an election with 27 percent of the vote if you just win the 11 largest states. http://www.npr.org/2016/11/02/500112...e-popular-vote . Donald Trump won the election but do not act like more people voted for him.

    Quote Originally Posted by notslap View Post
    but that part of your quote I could care less about....Please, please, please tell me about the scandals that Trump is plagued by. Google your heart out on MSNBC till your fingers turn to dust and show me these scandals.

    then ask me to show some Hillary scandals....
    Scandals Trump is plagued by? You mean other than marital rape, a fake university, being investigated for criminal tax evasion, circumventing the cuba embargo, collaborating with the Russians during the election (including having an advisor investigated by the FBI for meeting with the GRU/FSB) , trying to sidestep the office of government ethics, attempting to sidestep anti-nepotism laws by appointing his son in law to an advisory role without approval of Congress and using the office of president to prevent violation of his lease on the old post office. And he isnt even President yet. Didnt need google once by the way.

  17. #97
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    103
    It probably doesn't mean anything, but I have been noticing Nancy Pelosi popping up in the news a lot lately. It kind of makes me wonder if they are positioning her for a run in 2020. If the Dems think Pelosi is their savior, they didn't learn jack shit from this past election.

  18. #98
    Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2016
    Location
    The bar in slaps backyard
    Posts
    206
    Quote Originally Posted by Irishsara View Post
    That is exactly what that means. The majority of people voted against him. Less people voted for Donald Trump than didnt. He won the election but he did not receive a majority of the votes. The majority of people voted against him.

    Trump received 46% of the vote. This means the Majority of Americans voted against Donald Trump. The previous Presidents (for example) won 51.1 percent (Obama second term) and 53% (Obama First term) and 50.7% (George W. Bush second term). After winning his second term George Bush's White House Press Secretary called winning the popular vote (which he had failed to do the first time) a mandate. This is where I got it from. According to the Bush White House (Bush himself called it political capital), Donald Trump does not have the mandate of the voters because the voters preferred someone else.

    You could, in theory win an election with 27 percent of the vote if you just win the 11 largest states. http://www.npr.org/2016/11/02/500112...e-popular-vote . Donald Trump won the election but do not act like more people voted for him.



    Scandals Trump is plagued by? You mean other than marital rape, a fake university, being investigated for criminal tax evasion, circumventing the cuba embargo, collaborating with the Russians during the election (including having an advisor investigated by the FBI for meeting with the GRU/FSB) , trying to sidestep the office of government ethics, attempting to sidestep anti-nepotism laws by appointing his son in law to an advisory role without approval of Congress and using the office of president to prevent violation of his lease on the old post office. And he isnt even President yet. Didnt need google once by the way.
    Proficient in the art of google fu you are, believe you no one does. A mindless Hillary DNC shill you have become, all credibility you have lost. Hatred for the donald, and for a Great America is strong with you. Lost your mind will be when America's economy is booming. A strong advisor his son in law will become, green with envy I sense you are. Discussion of Billary & DNC corruption avoiding you are, reality...is it what you do not wish to face ? YES....AN Election the Donald won, fair it was,against all odds he faced.. deal with it I suggest. The Elephant in the room, discuss I would like to. MSM tampering with the election - the evidence, overwhelming it is, the bias, sickening...it is ..yes yes.

    Gypsum - If run they do with pelosi, done I fear the Democratic party is.

  19. #99
    Queen of Extreme Irishsara's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    5,489
    Quote Originally Posted by gypsumstack View Post
    It probably doesn't mean anything, but I have been noticing Nancy Pelosi popping up in the news a lot lately. It kind of makes me wonder if they are positioning her for a run in 2020. If the Dems think Pelosi is their savior, they didn't learn jack shit from this past election.
    The reason you are seeing so much of Pelosi is because with Harry Reid done and Chuck Schumer being compromised by Trump and brand new to his position, Pelosi is just the most experienced politician in leadership. I disagree with the 2020 run, the guys the democratic senate are pushing is Booker and Warren. I would be very afraid of Liz Warren though.

    GNR, try a fact based argument, itll help. As for Trump, well the FBI and CIA are already leaking stuff to the media ... I guess Trump will have to be more careful who he bashes on Twitter. But yeah, the Media is out to get Trump ... How did that work for Nixon?

  20. #100
    Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2016
    Location
    The bar in slaps backyard
    Posts
    206
    Hey dud - is it just me, or did I own Sarah so badly she can't even respond to my argument ? Sarah the CIA is leaking fake news they got from 4chan about the Donald Dumping tapes, I guess this goes to show the fact checking ability of our Intelligence Services.

    If such tapes did exist, wouldn't it be in national interest NOT to leak the existence of such material, and use the extent of their spying and subterfuge to make sure they never appear ? The Intelligence services have about 1 week left before the wrecking ball hits, it's not going to be pretty, but they are certainly in need of a reality check.

    I would like to know why you hate America so much ? Can you explain where your hatred stems from ? Are you suffering from White Guilt ? Perhaps we should go back to the days where being Irish is one strike against you, and being an Irish Woman is worse than being Black.
    Last edited by GNR711; 01-12-2017 at 04:08 PM.

  21. #101
    Queen of Extreme Irishsara's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    5,489
    Quote Originally Posted by GNR711 View Post
    Hey dud - is it just me, or did I own Sarah so badly she can't even respond to my argument ? Sarah the CIA is leaking fake news they got from 4chan about the Donald Dumping tapes, I guess this goes to show the fact checking of our Intelligence Services. t

    If such tapes did exist, would it not be in national interest NOT to leak the existence of such material, and use the extent of their spying and subterfuge to make sure they never appear ? The Intelligence services have about 1 week left before the wrecking ball hits, it's not going to be pretty, but they are certainly in need of a reality check.
    I didnt respond to you because you didnt add anything new and possessed nothing based in fact. I have already in this thread proved one of your factual statements a lie. After I proved that there were none of these supposed businessmen with their business empires intact we moved on. Your argument is backed up by nothing, I dont think I need to respond to cute gimmicks because you presented no facts. It is your opinion, which is just as valid as any other person with no facts. But it doesnt sway anyone because it is based in nothing but hyperbole.

    Lol, they cannot fire career CIA agents without cause. Hell the FBI director isnt even going to lose his job. This is just the beginning. Either Trump will fall in line or they will continue to let salacious stuff slip. It isnt like they let slip the 2 page verified and corroborated intelligence report. They released the thing that was going to catch the most heat, the raw intelligence. In any collection of raw intelligence you are going to have things which are real and which are rumor. The CIA then combs through, sees what it can corroborate and if some of it can be, then they brief the president(s). We know Donald Trump and Obama were briefed on this which means at least some of the evidence can be corroborated.

    What fake news did they leak (and how do we know it was the CIA and not someone from McCain's office? We know that at least some of the stuff in the dossier was true. We know that because much of it was corroborated. But look at the stuff we know to be true in the public record.

    The Trump campaign worked behind the scenes to gut the RNC Campaign platform of any strong stances on Russia and the Crimea. Then they lied about it.

    Viktor Yanukovych for example paid Donald Trump's campaign chairman Paul Manafort $12.7 million in undisclosed cash payments. Fact.

    one of Trump’s foreign policy advisers, Carter Page, went to Russia before the Republican convention and met with members of Russian intelligence and was investigated by the FBI for that meeting.

    The Russian deputy foreign minister has said members of the Trump camp maintained contact with Russia during the election.

    Hell, even Trump's alleged financial entanglements seem accurate. Stuff like Bayrock, The FL Group, and other Russian billionaires connected to Putin. Hell, Don Trump Jr. (who I admit to liking) even said "Russians make up a pretty disproportionate cross-section of a lot of our assets." when talking about the business. Donald Trump could clear it up by making his financials completely public (as well as the trust). I mean if he is refusing to use a true blind trust then we should at least see if Trump is enriching himself from the public purse by using HUD to funnel money towards his own business (President Trump owns a stake in a 46 building affordable housing development in Brooklyn overseen by HUD, which he is trying to appoint Ben Carson to). Right? Or no? Should Trump be able to keep these potential conflicts secret?
    Last edited by Irishsara; 01-12-2017 at 04:14 PM.

  22. #102
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    419
    Quote Originally Posted by GNR711 View Post
    Sarah the CIA is leaking fake news they got from 4chan about the Donald Dumping tapes, I guess this goes to show the fact checking ability of our Intelligence Services.
    This. The fact that CNN ran with a 4chan hoax regarding Trump ordering whores to piss on him of all things shows what a joke the liberal media is.

    Trump could accidentally bump into a random woman and CNN would say he raped her.

    Trump could hire 500 employess, if 499 of them were black and one was white, CNN would label him a racist.

    Trump could deport 3 proven radical muslim terrorists, and CNN would run it as he is putting muslims in concentration camps.

  23. #103
    Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2016
    Location
    The bar in slaps backyard
    Posts
    206
    Hillary & the Dems lost the election so hard, it is hilarious. I used to be a Democrat until the Democrats abandoned the working stiff in order to be the party of Immigrants and Gays - I don't know why the Unions still support the Democrats, the entire Democratic message is so far from the Union message these days.

    Anyways anyone who is not totally out of touch could feel the anger among the electorate in the last year - trump was the only one who could feel that anger, and he tapped into it like no one has done before - and behold, we now have emperor trump, it makes me laugh hysterically imaging the people cowering in fear of the doland.

    I went to a trump rally, they are full of energy, raw emotion, hatred...I imagine this is how a KKK rally feels like, and it feels good, damn good to put immigrants gays women and minorities in their place.

    The fact is the Democrats were stupid, damn stupid. Hillary was the stupidest of them all - NO ONE wanted her, even the Democrats didn't want her, but they were being forced to accept her, clearly the primaries were rigged against Bernie Sanders, only an idiot would deny this.

    The Republicans tried to do that shit with Jeb Bush and got shut down - the difference in the votes are people voted for Donald because they WANTED HIM and they were ANGRY, and PASSIONATE- people voted for Hillary, not because gave two shits about her, but because the donald is such a maverick it had the homo's, the illegals, the PC-libtards chimping out. And once the Donald won, Chimp out is exactly what they did. Slap am I right or am I right ?

  24. #104
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    419
    Quote Originally Posted by GNR711 View Post
    Hillary & the Dems lost the election so hard, it is hilarious. I used to be a Democrat until the Democrats abandoned the working stiff in order to be the party of Immigrants and Gays - I don't know why the Unions still support the Democrats, the entire Democratic message is so far from the Union message these days.

    Anyways anyone who is not totally out of touch could feel the anger among the electorate in the last year - trump was the only one who could feel that anger, and he tapped into it like no one has done before - and behold, we now have emperor trump, it makes me laugh hysterically imaging the people cowering in fear of the doland.
    ^ Very few of you know GNR. He was around here 15yrs ago (yes I am embarrassingly dating myself) and he was easily the biggest Democrat on the board. He worked for the democratic party even. I remember his jizz fest when Obama won in 2008.

    Read what he said. He is living proof of why the Dems lost. He is living proof of why an ego maniac who speaks before thinking is the most powerful man in the free world. We as Americans are pissed the fuck off and we sent in a guy who represents us. You can say that us "hillbillys" and "racists" and whatever voted him in. He made office because the country has become a joke. Land of the cunts.

  25. #105
    it feels good, damn good to put immigrants gays women and minorities in their place.


    lol, ok

  26. #106
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    419
    Quote Originally Posted by uncle joe or whatever View Post
    it feels good, damn good to put immigrants gays women and minorities in their place.


    lol, ok
    illegals is the only term that applies to your above statement...and has of right now he has nothing in place to do anything about them...although I trust he will.

    I don't see how LEGAL immigrants, gays, women and minorities are being "put in their place", but I'm sure you will tell us
    Last edited by notslap; 01-15-2017 at 12:16 PM.

  27. #107
    Senior Member American Mikey P's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Location
    Boston, MA
    Posts
    938
    That was a quote from GNR that Uncle Joe was laughing at....so I believe your question should be directed to GNR...

  28. #108
    Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2016
    Location
    The bar in slaps backyard
    Posts
    206
    Quote Originally Posted by notslap View Post
    illegals is the only term that applies to your above statement...and has of right now he has nothing in place to do anything about them...although I trust he will.

    I don't see how LEGAL immigrants, gays, women and minorities are being "put in their place", but I'm sure you will tell us
    Well he is going to dial back the legal immigrants from africa and the middle east, that is one way of doing it. AS for women, the pussy grabber was elected, so that already puts the irish sarah's in their places by default. Trump hasnt really said much about gays, but he comes from a christian background and is surely going to do a 180 from Obama's complete pandering to the gay community.

  29. #109
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    419
    http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/25/politi...ers/index.html

    wow, 5 days in.

    I didn't even think he would

  30. #110
    Queen of Extreme Irishsara's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    5,489
    Holy Shit. I wonder if the Sanctuary Cities executive order will hold up in court.

    Just for an example, This order would cute $207 million for the Head Start preschool program in LA and cut $70 million for airport security improvements to LAX with on swoop of the pen. Think of stuff like that but all over the country. Worse in the south, in places which rely on immigrant farm labor.

    Donald Trump hates preschoolers!

    After some more reading, it seems unlikely to stand in federal court.
    Last edited by Irishsara; 01-25-2017 at 09:38 PM.

  31. #111
    Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2016
    Location
    The bar in slaps backyard
    Posts
    206
    Don't drag pre-schoolers into this. Donald hates ILLEGAL ALIENS, and cities who BREAK THE LAW, by harboring these illegals. It really should be a no brainer for these cities, I really can't understand this hard-on for letting illegals run rampant throughout your city ? and at the risk of losing potential billions ?

  32. #112
    Queen of Extreme Irishsara's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    5,489
    There is no real risk to losing billions. The order is unconstitutional.

    And hey, that losing billions would effect those preschoolers.

    New York v. United States, 505 U.S. 144 (1992) held that the congress cannot usurp state and local jurisdiction and force them to comply with federal law. The separation of powers (10th amendment) means the state and local law enforcement has discretion when to turn over immigrants.

    South Dakota v. Dole, 483 U.S. 203 (1987) held that Congress cannot force local governments to act based on the coercion of withholding federal funds. And the 2012 rulling on Obamacare, National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius, 567 U.S. ___ (2012), 183 L. Ed. 2d 450, 132 S.Ct. 2566, held that the government cannot withhold or target funds already promised for different purposes.

    Basically, the Supreme Court has held that Trump does not have the power to do what he just issued an executive order to do. The first city to challenge this on a liberal circuit will roll right through it. Like Texas' voter ID law. It is electioneering and won't hold up in court the first time he tries to use that order. Order Unconstitutional.

    Trump might be able to withhold police funds because it is for the same purpose. Wait, no he can't, because he excluded police funding. He can reward cities for doing it (but that would take congress and probably end up weakening the effect). But he cannot punish them like he is planning. The Office of the President lacks the power.
    Last edited by Irishsara; 01-25-2017 at 10:06 PM.

  33. #113
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    103
    This is the same way the Fed got every state to raise the legal drinking age to 21. Any state that didn't do so lost it's federal highway money.

  34. #114
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    2,289
    I'm currently living in Ithaca, NY which money is very progressive and liberal overall (10,000 for the women's march and the city is only 30,000 people). The mayor here - a 29-year-old who has a big future in politics - says it's worth losing the money. We'll see what happens.

  35. #115
    Queen of Extreme Irishsara's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    5,489
    Quote Originally Posted by gypsumstack View Post
    This is the same way the Fed got every state to raise the legal drinking age to 21. Any state that didn't do so lost it's federal highway money.
    Take a read of the National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius opinion. The Supreme Court defines why something like this (and like Obamacare stripping 10% of the funding out of medicaid if states didnt expand it) was unconstitutional while that was. (Basically it has to do with the intended impact and the size of the decision). the law or order cannot be too coercive.


    Edit: I want another bite at this. So, in South Dakota v. Dole (the supreme court case about the drinking age) one of the tests the Supreme Court said that a law or order must satisfy in order for withholding of the money to be constitutional is called the "germane rule" The Supreme Court stated in Dole that the drinking age condition was germane to the use of the funds because the intent was safe interstate highway travel.

    So, is Head start funding for Kindergartners or the majority of what is threatening to be withheld germane to immigration enforcement?

    This is why you should take a few minutes to read the opinions.
    Last edited by Irishsara; 01-26-2017 at 12:29 AM.

  36. #116
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    103
    Got it. And it makes sense. So it's less to do with Trump doing something unconstituional and more to do with him overreaching into unconstiutional action. Pulling all the money is too broad. One could argue illegal immigrants do send their children to school, but again, too broad. Pull the money from law enforcement for refusing to do their job? That would probably be too broad as well. Is there a way for Trump to get what he wants and have it be constituional?

    And can the president even do something like this on the city level? Isn't there some kind of chain of command type situation? The cities get their funding from the state who gets their funding from the fed. Wouldn't he need to pull funding to the entire state to stop it from going to a certain city? It's been quite a while since I brushed up on my civics.

  37. #117
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    419
    What's "unconstitutional" about it?

    For 8yrs we've had a president that catered to handout mooches & the unemployed. Now we have one that caters to the working class.

    This fucking country is so used to handouts they're going ape shit over a workings mans president

  38. #118
    Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2016
    Location
    The bar in slaps backyard
    Posts
    206
    Quote Originally Posted by Irishsara View Post
    Take a read of the National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius opinion. The Supreme Court defines why something like this (and like Obamacare stripping 10% of the funding out of medicaid if states didnt expand it) was unconstitutional while that was. (Basically it has to do with the intended impact and the size of the decision). the law or order cannot be too coercive.


    Edit: I want another bite at this. So, in South Dakota v. Dole (the supreme court case about the drinking age) one of the tests the Supreme Court said that a law or order must satisfy in order for withholding of the money to be constitutional is called the "germane rule" The Supreme Court stated in Dole that the drinking age condition was germane to the use of the funds because the intent was safe interstate highway travel.

    So, is Head start funding for Kindergartners or the majority of what is threatening to be withheld germane to immigration enforcement?

    This is why you should take a few minutes to read the opinions.
    I want you to put your google-fu & wikipedia editing skills to work, and tell us why these "sanctuary cities" have a hard-on for harboring illegal aliens ? The people causing contention here are not the ladies changing bed sheets at motel 8 or dudes slinging hash at your neighborhood joint, the people in the spotlight are felons, gang-bangers, people who have been deported repeatedly, yet here they are driving drunk in America. If an illegal without a drivers license mowed over your parents while he was driving drunk in a car he stole, would you still be singing the same tune ? I doubt it. I think you would be on the border, tomorrow reliving the dud of his border wall digging conscription duties.

  39. #119
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    419
    ^ boom

  40. #120
    Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2016
    Location
    The bar in slaps backyard
    Posts
    206
    No spamming slap. If you want to gloat over my ownage of irish sara, you need to say more than boom.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •