Now what does Trump do?

a reply to: nwtrucker

Lol. You are such a hypocrite. There is no point in continuing this conversation.

a reply to: Krazysh0t


Excellent!

a reply to: Wide-Eyes

Mohammed Ali was one of the most Racist Mother f#ckers of the lot.

Did he get sued for his racism and lost in court like Donnie did? Now whose the racist Mother f#cker?

originally posted by: nwtrucker

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: UKTruth
There has been almost 1 year of investigations, including "wire tapping" Trump associates and unmasking names (including Trumps) in recorded conversations. What exactly is an independent investigator going to find??? I will assume that no rational person just wants an investigator on the ground continuing until he or she finds something - or not - forever! The route open seems to be to go via the U.S. Department of Justice Office of Special Counsel, which actually would be overseen by Sessions. All that 'special prosecutor' stuff ended in 1999 when the law ran out and was not renewed.

I don't know until we appoint one. Need I remind you that there were eight investigations into Benghazi?

Lets just be honest - the Democrats have no evidence but want to draw this out and extend the news cycle into 2018. It's a political play to try and win back the Senate and House. The phony calls for a special prosecutor (which does not exist, although I am glad you have at least used the term special investigator) are nothing more than political red meat. The first thing to do is to get the results from the FBI, House Intel Committee and the Senate Intel committee. IF they find something then, yeah, move it forward.

You do realize that the point of an investigation is to collect evidence right? So not having evidence really isn't a problem when it comes to wanting an investigation to take place. In fact, it's usually a pre-requirement. Sarcastically dismissing this because you don't intend to understand the process isn't going to make these calls go away, by the way.

There were eight investigations into Benghazi because there was evidence AND people died. Hello? To compare the two is disingenuous. Even the most rabid of Democrats have said there has been zero evidence pointing to collusion. Just the hope there's something....somewhere.

If there was evidence then why was Obama and Hillary cleared by every GOP backed investigation?

originally posted by: nwtrucker
a reply to: Krazysh0t


Trump didn't write the ACHA. He wanted repeal. Then a new bill. So yes, I THINK. Try it. It's fun.

It doesn't matter he attached his name to it, pushed to have it passed, and celebrated its passing as a victory. It's Trumpcare. He owns it now. Well he'd own anything that passed under his watch, so that makes this lie that he promised health care for everyone all the more odd that you guys don't care that he said. You know since its the exact same lie y'all hold Obama's feet to the fire over. Here I'll repost it here so you can't pretend you didn't see it:

TRUMP: “We’re going to have insurance for everybody. There was a philosophy in some circles that if you can’t pay for it, you don’t get it. That’s not going to happen with us.” — to The Washington Post, Jan. 15.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: nwtrucker
a reply to: Krazysh0t


Trump didn't write the ACHA. He wanted repeal. Then a new bill. So yes, I THINK. Try it. It's fun.

It doesn't matter he attached his name to it, pushed to have it passed, and celebrated its passing as a victory. It's Trumpcare. He owns it now. Well he'd own anything that passed under his watch, so that makes this lie that he promised health care for everyone all the more odd that you guys don't care that he said. You know since its the exact same lie y'all hold Obama's feet to the fire over. Here I'll repost it here so you can't pretend you didn't see it:

TRUMP: “We’re going to have insurance for everybody. There was a philosophy in some circles that if you can’t pay for it, you don’t get it. That’s not going to happen with us.” — to The Washington Post, Jan. 15.

I believe it! That's why I said he'd cover the poor under Medicare, if not some other means. Yes, politically, he 'owns' it. No, it isn't what he wants or expected, based on your own post. Hello? Yes, he called it a victory, a bit of a stretch, unless he feels that that opens the door to tax cut legislation. That, in turn, opens the door for more economic growth and therefore revenue for healthcare coverage, etc.. You can dump on Trump, I dump on the Republican Party. Time for a third party......

a reply to: buster2010


Your joking, right
? Cleared? In your mind only.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: Wide-Eyes
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Impeachment for what? Please enlighten me because I'm seriously confused by your post.

As of now, obstruction of justice for firing Comey and attempting to influence a federal investigation by demanding his loyalty, or for disseminating classified information to the Russians a day after the firing of Comey.

At this point I care about that more than if he colluded with the Russians during the election.

A little while back. The Obama administration took the PLA commander in chief on a tour of various top secret installations in the U.S.. Things thee and me will never set eyes on. Those capabilities make any comments Trump made look like a joke in comparison. I haven't been able to find the news report that specifically stated his visiting installations but this one flirts with it .www.defensetech.org...

a reply to: nwtrucker

Legal transgressions aren't a zero sum game. Trump doesn't get to get away with illegally disseminating classified information even if the Obama administration is guilty of the same. Stop deflecting the point.

a reply to: nwtrucker

A third party isn't going to magically assist Trump in cutting through political gridlock.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: nwtrucker

Legal transgressions aren't a zero sum game. Trump doesn't get to get away with illegally disseminating classified information even if the Obama administration is guilty of the same. Stop deflecting the point.

Nothing 'illegal' about either example. The President, either one, has the right to decide what is 'classified' and what he can declassify. Stop grasping at straws. LOL

a reply to: nwtrucker

This is why I call you a hypocrite. It only bothers you when Democrats mishandle classified information. You are one of the posters that made a huge stink of Hillary's email controversy and you are just hand waving away this concern like it's not big deal without even trying to understand the implications of what happened.

originally posted by: nwtrucker
a reply to: buster2010


Your joking, right
? Cleared? In your mind only.

Yes, cleared. They tried to make it stick. They failed. It's only an issue for you. And this is deflection by the way. Nice try, but no.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: nwtrucker

This is why I call you a hypocrite. It only bothers you when Democrats mishandle classified information. You are one of the posters that made a huge stink of Hillary's email controversy and you are just hand waving away this concern like it's not big deal without even trying to understand the implications of what happened.

LOL. This is why I call YOU a hypocrite. I never bitched about the PLA leader's tour of top secret installations. Equally, neither did you or your ilk. Now?? How dare Trump!!!

Sneer.

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg

originally posted by: nwtrucker
a reply to: buster2010


Your joking, right
? Cleared? In your mind only.

Yes, cleared. They tried to make it stick. They failed. It's only an issue for you. And this is deflection by the way. Nice try, but no.

Deflection from what? The question was investigations. period. One had deaths and even torture. The other? Allegations. No more. Now that was the 'deflection'.

a reply to: nwtrucker

Lol. I like how you suddenly get amnesia on the Hillary issue and continue talking about that PLA issue like I never even mentioned her just now.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: nwtrucker

A third party isn't going to magically assist Trump in cutting through political gridlock.

Maybe not. Certainly not 'magically'. It will give the current Republican elite pause if it is proposed by Trump and/or a grassroots movement.

This you can bank on. Something has to change and soon. A third party that attempts putting nation above ideology or 'Party' is the best course I can come up with. The current bunch on both sides of the aisle seem oblivious.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: nwtrucker

Lol. I like how you suddenly get amnesia on the Hillary issue and continue talking about that PLA issue like I never even mentioned her just now.

No amnesia, it will not be forgotten. That I can promise you. Insufficient evidence isn't 'cleared' by any means. I raised the PLA point regarding your bleating about Trump's top secret release. Nothing to do with Hillary whatsoever and you know it.

a reply to: nwtrucker

I agree actually. A third party would be just enough to mix things up to get politics moving again. But your idea of a third party is probably unrealistic to what it would look like if it appeared. A third party is more likely to be a mix of moderate liberals and moderate conservatives to make a true moderate party while the Democrat and Republican parties fall into more extreme versions of their political affiliations. Thus, if a third party appeared it would likely not be Trump's ally and would support some liberal causes as well.

originally posted by: nwtrucker

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: nwtrucker

Lol. I like how you suddenly get amnesia on the Hillary issue and continue talking about that PLA issue like I never even mentioned her just now.

No amnesia, it will not be forgotten. That I can promise you. Insufficient evidence isn't 'cleared' by any means. I raised the PLA point regarding your bleating about Trump's top secret release. Nothing to do with Hillary whatsoever and you know it.

Lol. You just continue to ignore your hypocrisy in being upset in how Hillary handled classified information but not caring about how Trump handles it. I guess only liberals have to worry about those pesky things called "laws" huh?