P
PaulinVA
Guest
Foreign Corrupt Practices Act 15 U.S.C. §§ 78dd-1, et seq Might be a stretch. I don’t know.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
Foreign Corrupt Practices Act 15 U.S.C. §§ 78dd-1, et seq Might be a stretch. I don’t know.
D
drcube
Guest
If you can’t win the argument on merits, then people go down other route. Deflection, name calling, errors, falsehoods. The name calling indicates you have lost the argument.Source duly considered.
M
Maximus1
Guest
It is implicated. The statute where Congress allocated the money had requirements to determine if Ukraine improved on Curruption. The DOD did extensive vetting which was completed affirmatively in May. It isn’t legal for the executive branch to add additional conditions. Trump didn’t, he has used conditions as an alabi. Including other nations contributions, the most recently debunked.
M
Maximus1
Guest
You are a Trump supporter who decides people are not credible if they name call. I have to admit that just creates an involuntary chuckle
D
drcube
Guest
I generally do not support Trump’s policies and try to avoid name calling, so I am confused by your post.You are a Trump supporter who decides people are not credible if they name call. I have to admit that just creates an involuntary chuckle
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
I don’t understand what you’re saying, but I don’t know that it matters whether I do or dont’Biblical Royalty. I am happy you wrote what you did.
A whistleblower who told the truth could only be a " betrayer" if the betrayed were biblical Royalty. I cannot concieve of any legal way one would circumvent the oath to the Constitution.
I am not interested in criticism of your post. Simply identifying it’s featured. If only those who call Trumpism a cult understood how unnecessary. Simply read the facts and identify the simply and truthfully. Cult requires a defense. And the word is so unnecessary to get the truth accross
I really don’t think Reagan would approve of the Dems today, who are even more radical than they were in his time. And Reagan had no problem with alienating the nominally Republican “Never Reaganites” of his time, of which there were a fair number. Back then, they were known as “Rockefeller Republicans”, and they were every bit as hostile to Reagan as the “Resistance Repubs” are to Trump today, and for much the same reason.You could simply say REAGAN LOYALIST if you wanted a non-pejorative yet exact name for what Trump calls never Trumpers.
Last edited:
M
Maximus1
Guest
Reagan would turn over in his grave if he knew what Trump was doing. I guess who Reagan was in 1980 has been altered.
And you say you don’t understand what I am saying and that is likely a clinical necessity.
And you say you don’t understand what I am saying and that is likely a clinical necessity.
Last edited:
F
F_Marturana
Guest
Question: if your 73 year old loved one doctored a photograph of his face superimposed over the shirtless body of a muscular boxer, would you worry?
And if he posted it on his work website would you worry? Find it odd?
And if he posted it on his work website would you worry? Find it odd?
Because Trump did that earlier today. The leader of the free world tweeted out a beef-cake picture.
M
Maximus1
Guest
It has the Makings of creepy
P
PaulinVA
Guest
I would discount him as a little touched and treat him lovingly and ensure he was never in a position to make any decisions.Question: if your 73 year old loved one doctored a photograph of his face superimposed over the shirtless body of a muscular boxer, would you worry?
There was no witness that knew of any law broken. There are no laws broken on the transcript.The witness and transcript
JFK would turn over in his if he saw how extreme left the Democrat Party has moved and the measures they are taken to nullify an election.Reagan would turn over in his grave if he knew what Trump was doing. I guess who Reagan was in 1980 has been altered.
And you say you don’t understand what I am saying and that is likely a clinical necessity.
M
Maximus1
Guest
Now I am confused about yours also
M
Maximus1
Guest
There was no witness called competent to issue a legal opinion. I think you are referring to the unethical questions seeking legal opinions.
M
Maximus1
Guest
Even Nixon would have questioned Trump’s conduct as unAmerican.
D
drcube
Guest
Then let’s not worry about it.Now I am confused about yours also
D
drcube
Guest
How have they turned extreme left?JFK would turn over in his if he saw how extreme left the Democrat Party has moved and the measures they are taken to nullify an election.
D
drcube
Guest
And I kind of thought this was a joke. It wasn’t. Oh, my.Question: if your 73 year old loved one doctored a photograph of his face superimposed over the shirtless body of a muscular boxer, would you worry?
And if he posted it on his work website would you worry? Find it odd?
M
Maximus1
Guest
I thought it was a joke but it is in the news.
No. I’m referring to what witnesses said. They said they were unaware of any criminal acts. In fact, they were really unaware of anything other than the opinions and in one instance, hurt feelings.There was no witness called competent to issue a legal opinion. I think you are referring to the unethical questions seeking legal opinions.
Nixon, of course, had more integrity than Schiff, but I doubt your conclusion.Even Nixon would have questioned Trump’s conduct as unAmerican.
Last edited:
- Status
- Not open for further replies.