America - The Official Thread

[CTznOfTime]

Again, post evidence Russia let Trump bomb Syria and put on a show that they were upset.

If it is ok for the current POTUS to talk out of his @$$, then i can do the same... With more logic.

After the bombing by Trump, the fact that neither Russia or Syria bat a lash or were even upset is evidence that this whole thing was coordinated, as if they were not surprised their hands would get slap, or should i say that the bombimg didnt affect or impact anything on their side,so why should they even bother responding to this bush trimming...




It "Sad" as Trump would put it that the comedians are actually reporting and spelling out the obvious rather than the supposedly real news (FOX) that are instead glaringly sending propaganda

I would much rather have a laugh while getting my real news





Than to get all my senses bleached by fake news

 

[huskeR32]

What would you like Trump to have done? Not fire Comey?

At the very least, not until the investigation was done. After that, he would no longer be interfering.

He was clearly incompetent.

Couldn't agree more.

Obviously if he fires Comey you seem to think it's inappropriate.

The actual way it went down? Yes. That's not a blanket statement that would apply to all situations.

Most will immediately argue that it's to cover wrongdoing and install a crony.

Cool. I'm not making that argument.

Had the investigation finished, and Comey did not bring charges, it kinda renders the "cover wrongdoing" bit moot, yeah?

Then the firing could indeed be about his incompetence. That's a whole different ballgame.

Why should trump be required to keep this guy in place after effectively publicly admitting that he was failing to go after someone who was guilty? Because the guy was investigating trump?

Yes.

How long did Trump need to wait?

Until said investigation was completed.

Could Comey just keep investigating Trump (or... people with ties to trump) as long as he wanted job security?

At some point, the politics of it become pretty obvious, and opinions could be adjusted accordingly.

But we weren't anywhere near that point yet. It was only, what, five weeks ago that Comey revealed that the investigation was happening?

It hasn't even begun to be too long yet.

Similarly, if Hillary takes office and fires him for having put her under investigation, that's not the same as Trump firing him for investigating people around him.

On the one hand, you're waving away clear differences between Hillary and Trump in order to try and draw a comparison; on the other you're going to nitpick over the distinction between investigating Trump's campaign rather than Trump the man?

What is the practical difference? If that investigation turns up evidence of Russian involvement, Trump's in hot water. Nobody gives a hoot about the distinction between him and his campaign.

 

[McLaren]

What logic are you presenting because you're just repeating yourself without any meat to your claim?

Didn't bat an eye? That's why a Russian official announced they would not tolerate the US bombing Syria again?

 

[huskeR32]

What logic are you presenting because you're just repeating yourself without any meat to your claim?

Didn't bat an eye? That's why a Russian official announced they would not tolerate the US bombing Syria again?

Who/what is this in response to?

 

[eran0004]

Insurance?

If the insurance makes health care affordable and accessible for everyone, yes. That means accepting pre conditions as well. Otherwise you end up with a bizarre "you shouldn't have health care because you're already ill"-situation.

I do actually want a Ferrari cake.

What's holding you back?

 

[CTznOfTime]

Who/what is this in response to?

To me, it was.

What logic are you presenting because you're just repeating yourself without any meat to your claim?

Didn't bat an eye? That's why a Russian official announced they would not tolerate the US bombing Syria again?

I keep on telling you that i do not have evidences, otherwise i would be speaking to CNN and other news outlet right now.

But you and i, we are stuck here arm-chair arguing.

I use logic and observe what is being done.
You seem to choose to turn a blind eye over the events or your point of view has been tainted by giving the man more trust than you ought to.

Once you open up your eyes, then we can discuss further.

Unless there are clear evidence that there is no collusion with external party, we are now in the right to doubt and to questions everything.

If anyone should be providing proof, it is Trump, or yourself if you can. (i am now talking to Trump directly, if in the remote chance that Trump is on this forum, or that Russia monitoring can relay this message to him If you guys dont want the cloud of doubt to exist any longer, and if you are truly clean and innocent, you could easily come clean and show your empty hands.

For now, every actions will be questioned and analyzed.

 

[McLaren]

I keep on telling you that i do not have evidences, otherwise i would be speaking to CNN and other news outlet right now.

But you and i, we are stuck here arm-chair arguing.

I use logic and observe what is being done.
You seem to choose to turn a blind eye over the events or your point of view has been tainted by giving the man more trust than you ought to.

You're making a claim and flat out admitting you have no evidence for it.

What logic? What observation? Explain WHAT it is that leads you to make that claim. Because so far, it's been, "Well, it just is."

Once you open up your eyes, then we can discuss further.

Why don't you try presenting anything to do so?

"Don't trust Trump. But trust me based on my word."

Coming from someone who dismisses mainstream media but posts Left-swinging comedians as news outlets.

Unless there are clear evidence that there is no collusion with external party, we are now in the right to doubt and to questions everything.

Is there clear evidence there is? It goes both ways.

 

[DDastardly00]

To me, it was.



I keep on telling you that i do not have evidences, otherwise i would be speaking to CNN and other news outlet right now.

But you and i, we are stuck here arm-chair arguing.

I use logic and observe what is being done.
You seem to choose to turn a blind eye over the events or your point of view has been tainted by giving the man more trust than you ought to.

Once you open up your eyes, then we can discuss further.

Unless there are clear evidence that there is no collusion with external party, we are now in the right to doubt and to questions everything.

If anyone should be providing proof, it is Trump, or yourself if you can. (i am now talking to Trump directly, if in the remote chance that Trump is on this forum, or that Russia monitoring can relay this message to him If you guys dont want the cloud of doubt to exist any longer, and if you are truly clean and innocent, you could easily come clean and show your empty hands.

For now, every actions will be questioned and analyzed.

In other words, guilty until proven innocent despite the fact that no charges have been filed and there is no active investigation against Trump himself. No Evidence of collusion has been found after over an 8 month investigation, which by the way has been confirmed by Clapper, Feinstein and Comey as well. You do realize that our Justice systems work a little differently than North Korea, right?

 

[TenEightyOne]

In other words, guilty until proven innocent

I think we've been over and over Trump's treatment of "Crooked Hillary", no need to revisit.

 

[DDastardly00]

I think we've been over and over Trump's treatment of "Crooked Hillary", no need to revisit.

I'm a little confused on what that has to do with the last post by CTznOfTime and my subsequent reply to said post.

 

[TenEightyOne]

I'm a little confused on what that has to do with the last post by CTznOfTime and my subsequent reply to said post.

You seemed keen that if guilt wasn't proven then the presumption should be innocence, I wondered how you squared that with Trump's merciless insistence of "Crooked" (his phrase) Hillary's "guilt" during his election campaign. Why should he be afforded so much presumption of innocence in comparison?

 

[CTznOfTime]

You both make good points and i accept you views as being correct.

You're making a claim and flat out admitting you have no evidence for it.

What logic? What observation? Explain WHAT it is that leads you to make that claim. Because so far, it's been, "Well, it just is."

Why don't you try presenting anything to do so?

"Don't trust Trump. But trust me based on my word."

Coming from someone who dismisses mainstream media but posts Left-swinging comedians as news outlets.

Is there clear evidence there is? It goes both ways.

In other words, guilty until proven innocent despite the fact that no charges have been filed and there is no active investigation against Trump himself. No Evidence of collusion has been found after over an 8 month investigation, which by the way has been confirmed by Clapper, Feinstein and Comey as well. You do realize that our Justice systems work a little differently than North Korea, right?

You have on one side someone who is saying he is innocent, and that there is nothing to see :"move along"

You have on the other side all of us seeing actions and word spoken and events happening on the other party that raise suspicions.

Although i have made the error of accusing and charging without clear evidence, but all that to point out that we have sufficient material right now to prove that we need to investigate further.

The evidences that we are now gathering cannot be ignored.

We are clearly seeing people shuffling the dirt under the carpet...

The task to determine whether he is innocent or not is not for either you or i, but for the replacement of Comey, whom should be totally neutral and independent from Trump.

 

[DDastardly00]

You seemed keen that if guilt wasn't proven then the presumption should be innocence, I wondered how you squared that with Trump's merciless insistence of "Crooked" (his phrase) Hillary's "guilt" during his election campaign. Why should he be afforded so much presumption of innocence in comparison?

Because the justice system needs to be impartial, that is why. What a Candidate says on the campaign trail to get elected, in this case Trump, has little to do with one of the most sacred tenets of the American Legal justice system. Presumption of innocence until evidence is presented proving (beyond a reasonable doubt) that a person is guilty as charged is a right that is afforded to all Americans.

 

[IforceV8]

It's too bad we cant all fire those damn showboaters and grandstanders that easy. So much for the BS that came out this lying bastards mouth yesterday.

 

[CTznOfTime]

Because the justice system needs to be impartial, that is why. one of the most sacred tenets of the American Legal justice system. Presumption of innocence until evidence is presented proving (beyond a reasonable doubt) that a person is guilty as charged is a right that is afforded to all Americans.

Yes we all agree on that.

What a Candidate says on the campaign trail to get elected, in this case Trump, has little to do with one of the most sacred tenets of the American Legal justice system. Presumption of innocence

Really??! Why? Care to explain your reasoning?
Although all élection around this this country seems to be largely based on wild accusations, we cant just go about making it the norm any longer... This sort of things have got to stop. We divide ourselves for the wrong unproven reasons...Look how screwed up we all are now.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

What would you like Trump to have done?

Not fire Comey?

Fire him sooner or fire him later. It's not a good look when Trump fires him days after he requested more resources for the Russian investigation, testified to his belief that Russia is still trying to interfere in American politics, has received the support of the acting FBI director, and the White House cannot get its story straight on why he was fired (they initially said that it was on the advice of Sessions; now Trump claims he made the decision days ago).

Sure, it might be all down to perception. But that's what politics is all about - perception. And so much of Trump's election campaign hinged on public perceptions; he can't dismiss it now because it's inconvenient. Even if you afford Trump every benefit of the doubt, it's still hard to overlook the way Comey was fired at the worst possible moment. With Trump's ongoing accusations of fake news and media bias, I think you'll find most people have come to the conclusion that the safest course of action is to be sceptical about everything. If CNN claim an opinion poll proves Trump is the worst President ever, be sceptical. If Fox News run a story suggesting that the Russians aren't interfering in the political process, be sceptical. And if the President claims that he fired the FBI director because nobody had any confidence in him, be sceptical.

 

[DDastardly00]

Yes we all agree on that.


Really??! Why? Care to explain your reasoning?

I just did explain my reasoning, it's even quoted in your post:

Presumption of innocence until evidence is presented proving (beyond a reasonable doubt) that a person is guilty as charged is a right that is afforded to all Americans.

Trump may be President but he is still and American and entitled to the same rights as the rest of us.

Although all élection around this this country seems to be largely based on wild accusations, we cant just go about making it the norm any longer... This sort of things have got to stop. We divide ourselves for the wrong unproven reasons...Look how screwed up we all are now.

Is this a Leftist admission of guilt? It sure reads like one.

 

[Liquid]

I don't really care about what Clinton would have done or wouldn't have done. The fact is that Trump has done it, and did it last week, and it looks incredibly bad on him right now.

Pointing to "Yeah but if it was Hillary..." seems to be a distraction and it takes away from the issue of what's actually happening.

Who is Comey's successor going to be? A Trump lackey who will close down the investigation into his campaign? A campaign which would obviously have nothing to do with him personally?

 

[DDastardly00]

I don't really care about what Clinton would have done or wouldn't have done. The fact is that Trump has done it, and did it last week, and it looks incredibly bad on him right now.

Pointing to "Yeah but if it was Hillary..." seems to be a distraction and it takes away from the issue of what's actually happening.

Who is Comey's successor going to be? A Trump lackey who will close down the investigation into his campaign? A campaign which would obviously have nothing to do with him personally?

The FBI can't close down the Senate Intelligence Committee's investigation. The investigations will continue regardless of who is appointed as the new FBI director.

 

[Liquid]

The FBI can't close down the Senate Intelligence Committee's investigation. The investigations will continue regardless of who is appointed as the new FBI director.

But a Trump lackey could still aid in attempting to whitewash it, no?

 

[prousonhairy]

But a Trump lackey could still aid in attempting to whitewash it, no?

I kind of doubt that's going to happen now, this new guy's/gal's going to be under a nuclear-powered microscope.

 

[DDastardly00]

But a Trump lackey could still aid in attempting to whitewash it, no?

Do you know who the members of the Senate Intelligence Committee are? All Democrats and one Independent. I might be missing one but off the top of my head: Mark Warner, Dianne Feinstein, Ron Wyden, Martin Heinrich, Joe Manchin and Kamala Harris. In other words there is a fat chance in hell of that happening. If there is evidence, there will be a trial.

 

[Mike Rotch]

You're making a claim and flat out admitting you have no evidence for it.

Works for POTUS so why different rules needed for GTP?

 

[CTznOfTime]

This is what you said and i am quoting you again:

What a Candidate says on the campaign trail to get elected, in this case Trump, has little to do with one of the most sacred tenets of the American Legal justice system.

I just did explain my reasoning, it's even quoted in your post:

Presumption of innocence until evidence is presented proving (beyond a reasonable doubt) that a person is guilty as charged is a right that is afforded to all Americans.

Trump may be President but he is still and American and entitled to the same rights as the rest of us.



Is this a Leftist admission of guilt? It sure reads like one.

Wow Dude i think you need to go back and read yourself...

All you explained is: how the US justice system philosophy is based on (which we already agree on); then you say that this doesnt apply to candidates statements during an election campaign. (which i am contesting)

And so i asked you why? Why do accusations made during elections Not required to follow that?
Are you saying we can and we should continue to make all sorts of wild unproven accusations left and right during any campaign trails?

Is that some sort of way to leave behind bread crumbs so you can go back home?

Admission of guilt??! What am i guilty of? All politicians are guitly of this practice and i am saying we should stop it or moderate it... Or something...
It has become a war between the loudest/richest... Unjustified noises that just confuses the voters...

All party is guilty of this, but we wont be able to approve until we all recognize and accept what is wrong now.

Works for POTUS so why different rules needed for GTP?

Thank you, exactly my point...

 

[DDastardly00]

This is what you said and i am quoting you again:



Wow Dude i think you need to go back and read yourself...

All you explained is: how the US justice system philosophy is based on (which we already agree on); then you say that this doesnt apply to candidates statements during an election campaign. (which i am contesting)

And so i asked you why? Why do accusations made during elections Not required to follow that?
Are you saying we can and we should continue to make all sorts of wild unproven accusations left and right during any campaign trails?

Is that some sort of way to leave behind bread crumbs so you can go back home?

Admission of guilt??! What am i guilty of? All politicians are guitly of this practice and i am saying we should stop it or moderate it... Or something...
It has become a war between the loudest/richest... Unjustified noises that just confuses the voters...

All party is guilty of this, but we wont be able to approve until we all recognize and accept what is wrong now.

And I think you need to read a book or three and educate yourself. I really shouldn't have to explain that candidates for POTUS are not members of the Judicial branch and US elections are not a court cases in front of Federal Judges. You are comparing an Apple to a Tyrannosaurus Rex here, and the two have absolutely nothing to do with each other. You also seem to be implying that we should just throw out the 1st Amendment and candidates shouldn't have the right to free speech. Again, this is not North Korea and yes candidates lie, but you can't put a stop to it (as you suggest) without tossing out free speech and the entire foundation that both our Constitution and Government were founded upon.

If Hillary Clinton doesn't like what Trump said about her during the campaign then she can sue Trump for Slander if she wishes, of course he could do the same to her.

 

[Danoff]

If the insurance makes health care affordable and accessible for everyone, yes. That means accepting pre conditions as well. Otherwise you end up with a bizarre "you shouldn't have health care because you're already ill"-situation.

I have no idea what you're talking about. Pre-existing conditions make it difficult for you to insure against condition after having it. Which is kinda the crux of insurance.

What's holding you back?

The level of discourse we're having.

At the very least, not until the investigation was done. After that, he would no longer be interfering.



Couldn't agree more.



The actual way it went down? Yes. That's not a blanket statement that would apply to all situations.



Cool. I'm not making that argument.

Are you not following me? I very clearly avoided alleging that you did.

Had the investigation finished, and Comey did not bring charges, it kinda renders the "cover wrongdoing" bit moot, yeah?

Ask Hillary on that one.

At some point, the politics of it become pretty obvious, and opinions could be adjusted accordingly.

But we weren't anywhere near that point yet. It was only, what, five weeks ago that Comey revealed that the investigation was happening?

It hasn't even begun to be too long yet.


On the one hand, you're waving away clear differences between Hillary and Trump in order to try and draw a comparison; on the other you're going to nitpick over the distinction between investigating Trump's campaign rather than Trump the man?

I'm impressed that you can type that last bit with a straight... face? Read it back to yourself. Whether or not the person we're talking about is actually being investigated of wrongdoing is a nitpick...

What is the practical difference? If that investigation turns up evidence of Russian involvement, Trump's in hot water. Nobody gives a hoot about the distinction between him and his campaign.

It's amazing to me that you think you're not a believer.

 

[eran0004]

I have no idea what you're talking about. Pre-existing conditions make it difficult for you to insure against condition after having it. Which is kinda the crux of insurance.

You insure against cost for medical treatment. Sure, you can insure against condition as well, and in that case it's obvious that you shouldn't be able to insure a leg that you no longer have. But the insurance against cost should not be affected by pre-conditions.

The level of discourse we're having.

Then change the discourse.

 

[Johnnypenso]

You insure against cost for medical treatment. Sure, you can insure against condition as well, and in that case it's obvious that you shouldn't be able to insure a leg that you no longer have. But the insurance against cost should not be affected by pre-conditions.

What you are describing is not insurance, by definition. Once a condition exists, you can't insure against it. What you are really talking about is simply a flat fee for all medical expenses, regardless of your health or general well being. That kind of system, in a free market economy, is overwhelmingly unfair for the majority of people who are in the lowest risk groups, who choose to live healthy lifestyles while paying insurance premiums and wish to insure against catastrophe. If no one really needs to buy insurance until they get sick, which is basically what covering pre-existing conditions does, then the whole system will fall apart.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

Donald Trump claims to have invented the phrase "priming the pump" a few days ago, even though it has been in use for over eighty years:

http://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2017-...s-he-coined-priming-the-pump-metaphor/8520292

 

[Tornado]

I don't really care about what Clinton would have done or wouldn't have done. The fact is that Trump has done it, and did it last week, and it looks incredibly bad on him right now.

It does, but that doesn't change how much of the outrage over it is knee-jerk moral posturing which is largely what is being talked about. A lot of the people saying "If Trump hadn't done this during an investigation I'd be fine with it" are lying out of their ass.

If he had done it as soon as he took office the narrative would have just changed to "Look, he's abusing his power because he only fired him for not indicting Hilary" and they would have probably been right then too, but that doesn't affect whether those same people would have been fine with Hilary firing him for the same reasoning.