Trump's Last Line of Defense

  • Thread starter Thread starter EasterJoy
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
She did not. In fact there has been no such sale, and the ostenoble quid pro undercut by timeline and HRC’s limited authority in the matter.

Be real? The phony narrative on uranium has been debunked over and over again on this forum.

The narrative is not an incontrovertible fact. Calling it one compounds the problem.
Hillary’s “limited authority”? Without her signature on the Uranium One approval, it wouldn’t have happened. That doesn’t strike me as being terribly limited.

Well, go ahead then and prove that the quid pro quo in her receiving $145 million dollars from a Russian source had nothing to do with her approval of the Uranium One deal.

Might be convincing, after all.
 
Hillary’s “limited authority”? Without her signature on the Uranium One approval, it wouldn’t have happened. That doesn’t strike me as being terribly limited.

Well, go ahead then and prove that the quid pro quo in her receiving $145 million dollars from a Russian source had nothing to do with her approval of the Uranium One deal.

Might be convincing, after all.
What HRC has said and done. What Mr. Trump has said and done:
Utterly unrelated. Proving or disproving one says** zero **about the veracity of the other.
 
Hillary’s “limited authority”? Without her signature on the Uranium One approval, it wouldn’t have happened. That doesn’t strike me as being terribly limited.
Her signature and eight others going to the President.
Well, go ahead then and prove that the quid pro quo in her receiving $145 million dollars from a Russian source had nothing to do with her approval of the Uranium One deal.
Thanks for askng to prove a negative. But I am glad to see that, at least in this post, you refrained from pushing the false narrative that we sold uranium to the Russians
 
What HRC has said and done. What Mr. Trump has said and done:
Utterly unrelated. Proving or disproving one says** zero **about the veracity of the other.
No, they’re not related. But are people really trying to say they are, other than to support the proposition that the current news blitz and investigations are politically motivated and driven?

That’s really the point, isn’t it?
 
Omigosh! You mean Hillary Clinton did not get $145 million from Russia, that Bill didn’t get half a million for a speech in Russia, that Hilllary did not participate in the sale of 20% of American uranium to a Russian company?

And she didn’t say she supports “a woman’s right to choose”? She didn’t say that?

And she never did say “We came, we saw, Quaddhaffi died?” then laughed? She didn’t support war in Libya?

Let’s be real here. Those are just statements of fact that nobody denies or ever did.

Well, okay, I’ll admit “hideous laugh” was a bit over the top, though it did strike me that way at the time…not so much the laugh itself but the context. Maybe “macabre” would have been better.

Statement of incontrovertible facts is not really the same thing as calling a person “stupid”, “Cheetos”, or calling for boycott of his daughter’s business. Those kinds of things come quite a bit closer to “hateful”, wouldn’t you say?
Well, the above perfectly limns my point.

“When I criticize Hillary it’s not hateful. I have the perfect right to object to her!”

AND

“How dare you criticize Trump–how hateful! You have no right to object to him!”

#doublestandard
 
Well, the above perfectly limns my point.

“When I criticize Hillary it’s not hateful. I have the perfect right to object to her!”

AND

“How dare you criticize Trump–how hateful! You have no right to object to him!”

#doublestandard
About as far from what I said as can possibly be imagined. But fine, if your “dislike” of Trump is so blinding, so be it.

But one more time, just in case. Calling Trump “stupid” or making fun of his complexion with terms like “Cheetos” is not the same thing as suspecting quid pro quo when Clinton gets $140 million and approves sale of American uranium to a Russian company.
 
About as far from what I said as can possibly be imagined. But fine, if your “dislike” of Trump is so blinding, so be it.
Well…if your “dislike” of Hillary is so blinding, so be it…😉
But one more time, just in case. Calling Trump “stupid” or making fun of his complexion with terms like “Cheetos” is not the same thing as suspecting quid pro quo when Clinton gets $140 million and approves sale of American uranium to a Russian company.
Perhaps if you made a more equitable comparison you could refute my accusation of your egregious double standard.

Right now you’re just digging yourself in deeper.

Calling Trump names and making fun of his looks is wrong. Just like calling Hillary “Killary” or “murderer” or making fun of her looks is wrong.

That’s sounds like a better paradigm for discussing politics, no?
 
About as far from what I said as can possibly be imagined. But fine, if your “dislike” of Trump is so blinding, so be it.

But one more time, just in case. Calling Trump “stupid” or making fun of his complexion with terms like “Cheetos” is not the same thing as suspecting quid pro quo when Clinton gets $140 million and approves sale of American uranium to a Russian company.
Oops, stepping backwards again. No matter how many times you claim it, no uranium was sold. None. Why is it so difficult to stick to the truth of the matter.

And perhaps it;s time to give Cheetos a rest. One poster who has not posted in quite some time was the offender. The outrage about that, as though it were continuing issue is bogus.
 
No, they’re not related. But are people really trying to say they are, other than to support the proposition that the current news blitz and investigations are politically motivated and driven?

That’s really the point, isn’t it?
The point is that Trump believes he has and seems to have a certain segment of supporters who are pretty close to his “I could shoot someone on 5th Avenue” standard of support.

I have read things written about him, looked up the full text or full footage of the incident(s) in question, and seen him convicted by his own words. He has said some things that really do rate a Pants of Fire rating. These actions do not deserve a defense, but they get one from his supporters. They actually believe him when he says the reports are faked. Why, I do not know, but he has some “my guy can do no wrong” support out there.

Personally, I think that kind of support is just giving him enough rope to hang himself with.
 
The point is that Trump believes he has and seems to have a certain segment of supporters who are pretty close to his “I could shoot someone on 5th Avenue” standard of support.

I have read things written about him, looked up the full text or full footage of the incident(s) in question, and seen him convicted by his own words. He has said some things that really do rate a Pants of Fire rating. These actions do not deserve a defense, but they get one from his supporters. They actually believe him when he says the reports are faked. Why, I do not know, but he has some “my guy can do no wrong” support out there.

Personally, I think that kind of support is just giving him enough rope to hang himself with.
I don’t think the Trump haters really understand Trump supporters now, any more than they did during the election.

Some of the things he has said could be criticized as ill-considered, rude or crude. But that’s not the point of Trump support. Trump is viewed by his supporters as the last barrier in the way of a near-totalitarian progressive state; one that weaponizes the powers of government to destroy opposition and opposes much of what they believe in.

And there’s no small reason to believe that. Look at the IRS scandal. Look at Comey who wiggled and danced and went political in order to keep his position in the Obama administration, and got “queasy” in the process of taking orders from Loretta Lynch.

Look at the Pedesta/DNC revelations. Russia-produced or not it tells us what that party thinks of the Catholic Church, and how it seeks to undermine it, amplifying Obama’s “bitter clingers…” expression.

And progressivism in the last few years brought MS-13 in significant numbers into this country through Obama simply ignoring the law. And we came within a hair of importing hundreds of thousands of potential jihadis.

It goes on and on.

There is a “conservatism” among many in this country that is poorly understood even by ideological conservatives like the National Review folks who disdain the “masses” and favor progressive globalism, interventionism and open international trade markets, despite being conservative socially.

Personally, I count myself a Trump supporter, though I certainly don’t “worship” him or think he can do no wrong. I recall my parents’ telling their fond stories of Harry Truman who, in his time was considered crude and was vilified constantly by his “betters” in the media and in the halls of congress. They even knew of his associations with the Pendergast machine, and didn’t care. People used to yell “Give 'em hell, Harry” just like they yell “Drain the Swamp” now. Maybe I absorbed too much of that way of seeing things.
 
I don’t think the Trump haters really understand Trump supporters now, any more than they did during the election.

Some of the things he has said could be criticized as ill-considered, rude or crude. But that’s not the point of Trump support. Trump is viewed by his supporters as the last barrier in the way of a near-totalitarian progressive state; one that weaponizes the powers of government to destroy opposition and opposes much of what they believe in.

And there’s no small reason to believe that. Look at the IRS scandal. Look at Comey who wiggled and danced and went political in order to keep his position in the Obama administration, and got “queasy” in the process of taking orders from Loretta Lynch.

Look at the Pedesta/DNC revelations. Russia-produced or not it tells us what that party thinks of the Catholic Church, and how it seeks to undermine it, amplifying Obama’s “bitter clingers…” expression.

And progressivism in the last few years brought MS-13 in significant numbers into this country through Obama simply ignoring the law. And we came within a hair of importing hundreds of thousands of potential jihadis.

It goes on and on.

There is a “conservatism” among many in this country that is poorly understood even by ideological conservatives like the National Review folks who disdain the “masses” and favor progressive globalism, interventionism and open international trade markets, despite being conservative socially.

Personally, I count myself a Trump supporter, though I certainly don’t “worship” him or think he can do no wrong. I recall my parents’ telling their fond stories of Harry Truman who, in his time was considered crude and was vilified constantly by his “betters” in the media and in the halls of congress. They even knew of his associations with the Pendergast machine, and didn’t care. People used to yell “Give 'em hell, Harry” just like they yell “Drain the Swamp” now. Maybe I absorbed too much of that way of seeing things.
Well said. 👍
 
Calling Trump names and making fun of his looks is wrong. Just like calling Hillary “Killary” or “murderer” or making fun of her looks is wrong.

That’s sounds like a better paradigm for discussing politics, no?
Sure. Glad to see you agree with me about the hateful attacks on Trump. And never did I call Hillary Clinton “Killary” or “murderer” or make fun of her looks. Such things suggest personal hatred, and the repeated (especially daily) use of those or similar terms is a pretty good indicator that hatred is the motivating factor.
 
Sure. Glad to see you agree with me about the hateful attacks on Trump. And never did I call Hillary Clinton “Killary” or “murderer” or make fun of her looks.
Who in this discussion has called Trump Cheeto?
Why do you ddismiss the seriousness of malicious falsehoods of “suspecting quid pro quo when Clinton gets $140 million and approves sale of American uranium to a Russian company”, when that so-called never occurred?
 
I don’t think the Trump haters really understand Trump supporters now, any more than they did during the election.
Look at the Pedesta/DNC revelations. Russia-produced or not it tells us what that party thinks of the Catholic Church, and how it seeks to undermine it, amplifying Obama’s “bitter clingers…” expression.
The DNC? Not in the email thread at all.
Podesta? Received an email from a non-Christian activist. Not even working for HRC at the time? Given all of the email s form the DNC and Podesta, if that were really what the DNC/Podesta thought of the Catholic church, there might be another e-mail, or two, or hundreds.

And this is the sinister part Wiikileaks. An isolated email, incoming from another person, is trumped up as though it probatively portrayed what is in the heart of Podesta, or the DNC, or HRC. I am not sure if it takes hatefulness to stretch that far to assume evil in the hearts of others. But it is a wild, unsupported, and uncharitable, ad unnecessary stretch. And worse, the charge is often, though not always, accompanied by outright false witness.
 
Sure. Glad to see you agree with me about the hateful attacks on Trump. And never did I call Hillary Clinton “Killary” or “murderer” or make fun of her looks. Such things suggest personal hatred, and the repeated (especially daily) use of those or similar terms is a pretty good indicator that hatred is the motivating factor.
I do not hate Trump. I wish him well and hope he does well. But I will not be silent as his bad behavior, and inappropriate words continue to do damage.
 
Sure. Glad to see you agree with me about the hateful attacks on Trump. And never did I call Hillary Clinton “Killary” or “murderer” or make fun of her looks. Such things suggest personal hatred, and the repeated (especially daily) use of those or similar terms is a pretty good indicator that hatred is the motivating factor.
So here’s that inept comparison again.

You can’t have the paradigm of “you all” for anti-Trump folks here, as if it’s a behemoth of unity in hatred…while also reserving for yourself the right to say, “Well, I never called Hillary names and we’re all different in our criticism of Hillary.”

How about you have the same standard? Doesn’t that sound fair instead of making one standard for you and a different standard for anti-Trump people?

Either all you anti-Hillary people are ONE, and you’re as guilty of calling her Killary as the ones who actually did…(and then I will gladly accept the guilt of anti-Trump people making fun of his orange spray tan)…

OR…

All anti-Trump folks are responsible for what they say, individually, about the man…and then you are released from the guilt of calling a woman who has never murdered a single person KILLARY.
 
I don’t think the Trump -]haters/-] opponents really understand Trump supporters now, any more than they did during the election.
Maybe we should all try to raise the discourse a notch or two, and stop referring to political opponents as “haters”?
 
Maybe we should all try to raise the discourse a notch or two, and stop referring to political opponents as “haters”?
Or at least have some equity.

NOT: When I post my views on Hillary, I’m just expressing my objections but when you object to Trump you’re a hater.

Let’s do it this way:

EITHER: You’re a Hillary Hater when you post objections to her, and when people post objections to Trump they are Trump Haters…

OR: People can object to Trump while not being called a hater, just like people can object to Hillary while not being called a hater.

It’s the weird double standard that makes me go Hmmmm…
 
Who in this discussion has called Trump Cheeto?
Why do you ddismiss the seriousness of malicious falsehoods of “suspecting quid pro quo when Clinton gets $140 million and approves sale of American uranium to a Russian company”, when that so-called never occurred?
How do you know it never occurred? You don’t know anything of the kind, of course.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top