Trump's America

[VectorVictor]

6 hours ago, RedDenver said:

This might be the funniest "defense" of Trump I've read.

 

It’s been the most impotent so far, which carries its own version of “funny”.

 

 

 

[Nebfanatic]

9 hours ago, Ric Flair said:

 

When did Trump say ALL Mexicans are rapists or animals? I think you read the ALL part into his statement(s).

 

I have mixed feelings about the travel ban. But they didn’t restrict some majority Muslim countries, while restricting other countries. And there is a valid reason for additional screening from countries with disproportionate numbers of terrorists.

 

i wish Trump would stay off Twitter. But his record on there is mixed. 

 

No doubt Trump has some cronies that are slimy. That’s unfortunate, but true of just about everyone. 

 

Where is there any evidence of treason or collusion?

 

Strange I don’t see gay people being forced to attend religious services...but do see religious folk being forced to provide services related to gay weddings...in violation of their religious beliefs. I’m a supporter of gay marriage. But I’m appalled at how some members of the gay community have behaved since gay marriage was legalized, running roughshod over the rights of others. Respect and tolerance are two-way streets and if we’re going to live and work together with ithers who are different that we are, we have to respect those differences and each other’s rights. 

 

 

 

 

Well by his own admission via twitter he knew about the Trump tower meeting and if you've been following along not reporting the Kremlins interest in handing over Hillary emails in a timely fasion is actually a conspiracy crime based on you know, our laws. The evidence he is working with russia grows more overwhelming by the day. But of course you don't seem to mind rolling back sanctions on Russia or playing buddy buddy with Putin or legalizing asbestos and having Russian asbestos manufacturers stamp their shipments with a stamp that says "thanks trump!". You must be very excited for Putins visit to the White House. 

[Ric Flair]

On 8/12/2018 at 12:22 AM, RedDenver said:

This might be the funniest "defense" of Trump I've read.

 

Funny how? Certainly SOME Mexican people are rapists and murderers, including those who have come here and raped and/or murdered people. So when Trump uses loose language and makes some reference to Mexican rapists and murderers, is he describing SOME Mexicans or ALL Mexicans? I think the langauge and the context clearly mean SOME, but others disagree and read or head him to mean ALL. Some of any group are bad people (or hombres) as the case may be. I really wish Trump would use more precise language (and work harder to be less offensive for that matter) but that’s simply not going to happen. 

[Ric Flair]

2 hours ago, Nebfanatic said:

Well by his own admission via twitter he knew about the Trump tower meeting and if you've been following along not reporting the Kremlins interest in handing over Hillary emails in a timely fasion is actually a conspiracy crime based on you know, our laws. The evidence he is working with russia grows more overwhelming by the day. But of course you don't seem to mind rolling back sanctions on Russia or playing buddy buddy with Putin or legalizing asbestos and having Russian asbestos manufacturers stamp their shipments with a stamp that says "thanks trump!". You must be very excited for Putins visit to the White House. 

 

Meeting with Russians isn’t a crime. Meeting with Russians because you think they might give you dirt on your opponent likewise isn’t a crime. If it is, then the Hillary campaign should be in far more trouble than the Trump campaign.

 

Quote

But as bad as the Trump Tower meeting was, it took place at the request of the Russians. They were the ones who approached the Trump campaign, not the other way around.

 

By contrast, the Clinton campaign proactively sought dirt on Trump from Russian government sources.

They did it through cutouts. In April 2016, Clinton campaign lawyer Marc Elias retained opposition research firm Fusion GPS to compile incriminating information on Trump. Fusion GPS in turn hired Christopher Steele, a former British MI6 operative with sources among Russian government officials. The result was the salacious dossier, whose sources included “a senior Russian Foreign Ministry figure” and “a former top level intelligence officer still active in the Kremlin.” Steele’s work was paid for by Clinton’s presidential campaign and the Democratic National Committee. That means a paid agent of the Clinton campaign approached Russian officials for damaging material on Trump.

 

 

http://www.heraldtribune.com/opinion/20180811/thiessen-wheres-outrage-over-clinton-russia-collusion

 

 

[ZRod]

22 minutes ago, Ric Flair said:

 

Meeting with Russians isn’t a crime. Meeting with Russians because you think they might give you dirt on your opponent likewise isn’t a crime. If it is, then the Hillary campaign should be in far more trouble than the Trump campaign.

 

 

http://www.heraldtribune.com/opinion/20180811/thiessen-wheres-outrage-over-clinton-russia-collusion

 

 

Hmmm... So one campaign used a firm to talk to people in the Russian government and get info. The other used Russian government officials and agents to illegally obtain information. Call me crazy but, I don't think that's apples to apples.

[Nebfanatic]

1 hour ago, Ric Flair said:

 

Meeting with Russians isn’t a crime. Meeting with Russians because you think they might give you dirt on your opponent likewise isn’t a crime. If it is, then the Hillary campaign should be in far more trouble than the Trump campaign.

 

 

http://www.heraldtribune.com/opinion/20180811/thiessen-wheres-outrage-over-clinton-russia-collusion

 

 

Well actually....

 

Trump was briefed about the Russian threat on *August 17, 2016*—meaning he was, under the federal aiding/abetting statute, legally responsible to know it was "highly likely" Russia was committing computer crimes a full *16 days* before Smith set up KLS Research. By law, if Trump knew Smith was seeking Clinton emails in conjunction with his aides—and that Smith had been contacted by Russians saying they had such emails—after August 17, 2016 he was *required by law* to *shut down* Smith's outreach to Russia or face Conspiracy charges. In fact he did no such thing—as Smith seriously *increased* his effort *16 days after* Trump was on legal notice that Russia was committing crimes against America. Smith was acting as a Trump campaign agent with Trump campaign authority and Trump had to stop him and *didn't*. So unless you think a seasoned GOP activist was throwing around the names of four top Trump aides willy-nilly—and unless you believe those aides would've hidden info from Trump about the thing he cared most about—you have Trump on Conspiracy over Smith's clandestine efforts."

 

 

[RedDenver]

4 hours ago, Ric Flair said:

 

Funny how? Certainly SOME Mexican people are rapists and murderers, including those who have come here and raped and/or murdered people. So when Trump uses loose langauge and makes some reference to Mexican rapists and murderers, is he describing SOME Mexicans or ALL Mexicans? I think the langauge and the context clearly mean SOME, but others disagree and read or head him to mean ALL. Some of any group are bad people (or hombres) as the case may be. I really wish Trump would use more precise language (and work harder to be less offensive for that matter) but that’s simply not going to happen. 

I was wrong. THIS is the funniest "defense" of Trump.

[Guy Chamberlin]

Ric would have to go pretty far to warrant a banning, and I personally haven't seen anything that comes close. 

 

62 million Americans voted for Donald Trump. It baffles me. And yes, Trump presents a unique danger to America and the world.  I truly believe that.

 

But I don't see a way out unless I understand what Trump supporters are thinking. There's a good chance it will be offensive to my sensibilities. That doesn't mean I'd like to see them banned or discouraged from posting in this forum. They're just going to have to bring their A-game. This board tends to do its research. 

 

 

[hskerprid]

Funny how the main stream media in this country are so blatantly one sided. I can recall a time when the media reported the news and didn't make the news and sensationalize it. They truly should show both sides of the coin and stop with the bias that is so obvious. Only a well informed public can make rational and sound decisions. The current news outlets on both sides do not report fairly or objectively. How can they when they have their own agenda to support? Sensationalization of items means bigger ratings which in turn means greater profits.

 

When did common sense and discernment become extinct? 

[Making Chimichangas]

On ‎8‎/‎11‎/‎2018 at 10:00 AM, Ric Flair said:

 

They’re losing their minds every moment of every day over everything he does. You can credibly argue that he’s wrong, boorish, rude, offensive, a liar, and a jerk...sometimes or even a lot of the time. But to hear liberal media tell it, Trump is a worse version of Hitler and every night is Kristallnacht. They’ve long since sacrificed their credibility due to their hysteria.

 

"Losing their minds" is pure hyperbole.  And I realize this will come as a complete shock to you, but 90% of the things Trump does is outrageous; any person with a shred of decency or morality would find utterly reprehensible.

 

The thing is: you are a white, hetero, probably Christian, male and so all the outrageous things he says, all the threats he makes against people that don't look like you or him, all the discrimination he's fostering and legalizing under "religious liberty"--you have no idea how bad what he says actually is because NONE OF IT WILL EVER AFFECT YOU.

 

And if "their hysteria" causes people to lose their credibility in your eyes, then your willful, and utter blindness, and denial of Trump's criminality, treason, and bigotry sacrifices your credibility.

[Ric Flair]

32 minutes ago, Making Chimichangas said:

 

"Losing their minds" is pure hyperbole.  And I realize this will come as a complete shock to you, but 90% of the things Trump does is outrageous; any person with a shred of decency or morality would find utterly reprehensible.

 

The thing is: you are a white, hetero, probably Christian, male and so all the outrageous things he says, all the threats he makes against people that don't look like you or him, all the discrimination he's fostering and legalizing under "religious liberty"--you have no idea how bad what he says actually is because NONE OF IT WILL EVER AFFECT YOU.

 

And if "their hysteria" causes people to lose their credibility in your eyes, then your willful, and utter blindness, and denial of Trump's criminality, treason, and bigotry sacrifices your credibility.

 

I think “losing their minds” is more than fair language. The folks on MSNBC, CNN, the major networks, and more of the media gave him ridiculously favorable coverage. Remember how many times they had him on? I saw one calculation that he’d received aound $2 billion in free campaign advertising. They loved him, were entertained by him, and couldn’t get enough of him. Right up to the point that it looked like he might win. Then things suddenly turned. Now he was getting dangerous. Then he secured the nomination now he was an outright threat to the country. The coverage turned swiftly. The once-eccentric billionaire that they were on friendly terms with and happy to interview became a complete pariah.

 

i don’t like some of the things Trump says. I think his language is harsh, overly broad, boorish, crude, and offensive. I was appalled that he made that statement about how there were good folks on both sides after the Charlottesville debacle. When people are marching the streets in white hoods and burning torches, screaming vile nonsense, how hard is it to condemn that? I would think we could all gather around and agree that the Klan and their allies are loathsome. Maybe he meant that some of those who support leaving Confederate statutes alone are good people. But he should have been far more clear about that.

 

Respectfully, I think you’re only seeing the religious liberty versus gay marriage debate from one side. I have libertarian leanings for the most part, and have been happy to support gay marriage. I was doing so long before the likes of Obama and Clinton. A lot of that is based on a ‘live and let live’ way of looking at life. People should be free generally to do what they want and what makes them happy. If it doesn’t affect me or anyone else, who cares? Part was based on having several close friends who are gay. I want them to be able to be happy, live freely, have kids, build families, and be happy. 

 

But there’s a wide distinction between being free to marry and forcing others to come to the party and help you celebrate. When part of the gay community quickly turned on Christian businesses, it was pretty appalling. Gay people should be able to marry, but those who object to those marriages based on their religious or moral beliefs shouldn’t be required to participate. If a group of people, divided by race, gender, religion, sexuality, etc. are going to live together in peace, they need to be able to exercise their own beliefs without being persecuted. That’s what the First Amendment stands for. Attacking cake bakers, florists, and other Christian businesspeople and trying to force them to violate their religious beliefs is anathema to the principles of the country’s founding. 

 

As I said, I disagree with Trump’s statements on a relatively frequent basis. But I find the absurd overreaction to them to be puzzling. What has he said that is so threatening to minorities? Even more importantly, what has he actually done? I find much of the freaking out to be at least overblown. So what exactly has you so terrified of him?

 

 

[Making Chimichangas]

2 minutes ago, Ric Flair said:

As I said, I disagree with Trump’s statements on a relatively frequent basis. But I find the absurd overreaction to them to be puzzling. What has he said that is so threatening to minorities? Even more importantly, what has he actually done? I find much of the freaking out to be at least overblown. So what exactly has you so terrified of him?

 

If you actually have to ask these questions, then nothing I could say to you will get you to understand.

 

[Ric Flair]

1 hour ago, RedDenver said:

I was wrong. THIS is the funniest "defense" of Trump.

 

I’m not defending Trump. I’m looking at what he actually said and pointing out that he didn’t say what people are claiming, they seem to have read additional words into his statements. 

 

The question is what did he say and what did he mean? The plain language isn’t offensive and is objectively true. SOME Mexican people are rapists and murderers, including those who have come here and raped and murdered. So did Trump mean ALL or SOME? A natural reading of the semtence in context would indicate SOME to me. But for those convinced he’s Hitler, they interpret everything he says in a light consistent with that.

 

[Ric Flair]

2 minutes ago, Making Chimichangas said:

 

If you actually have to ask these questions, then nothing I could say to you will get you to understand.

 

 

See THAT’S the problem. You claim he’s some horrible, terrible, no-good, very bad man. Then when asked to explain why you think that...what he’s said or done that warrants such an extreme view, we get this sort of “if you don’t know, I’m not telling” response. 

 

So it’s a discussion board where you refuse to engage in discussion with those who don’t come to the table with your own beliefs and preconceived notions. What value is there to such a ‘discussion?’

[Nebfanatic]

9 minutes ago, Ric Flair said:

 

I think “losing their minds” is more than fair language. The folks on MSNBC, CNN, the major networks, and more of the media gave him ridiculously favorable coverage. Remember how many times they had him on? I saw one calculation that he’d received aound $2 billion in free campaign advertising. They loved him, were entertained by him, and couldn’t get enough of him. Right up to the point that it looked like he might win. Then things suddenly turned. Now he was getting dangerous. Then he secured the nomination now he was an outright threat to the country. The coverage turned swiftly. The once-eccentric billionaire that they were on friendly terms with and happy to interview became a complete pariah.

 

i don’t like some of the things Trump says. I think his language is harsh, overly broad, boorish, crude, and offensive. I was appalled that he made that statement about how there were good folks on both sides after the Charlottesville debacle. When people are marching the streets in white hoods and burning torches, screaming vile nonsense, how hard is it to condemn that? I would think we could all gather around and agree that the Klan and their allies are loathsome. Maybe he meant that some of those who support leaving Confederate statutes alone are good people. But he should have been far more clear about that.

 

Respectfully, I think you’re only seeing the religious liberty versus gay marriage debate from one side. I have libertarian leanings for the most part, and have been happy to support gay marriage. I was doing so long before the likes of Obama and Clinton. A lot of that is based on a ‘live and let live’ way of looking at life. People should be free generally to do what they want and what makes them happy. If it doesn’t affect me or anyone else, who cares? Part was based on having several close friends who are gay. I want them to be able to be happy, live freely, have kids, build families, and be happy. 

 

But there’s a wide distinction between being free to marry and forcing others to come to the party and help you celebrate. When part of the gay community quickly turned on Christian businesses, it was pretty appalling. Gay people should be able to marry, but those who object to those marriages based on their religious or moral beliefs shouldn’t be required to participate. If a group of people, divided by race, gender, religion, sexuality, etc. are going to live together in peace, they need to be able to exercise their own beliefs without being persecuted. That’s what the First Amendment stands for. Attacking cake bakers, florists, and other Christian businesspeople and trying to force them to violate their religious beliefs is anathema to the principles of the country’s founding. 

 

As I said, I disagree with Trump’s statements on a relatively frequent basis. But I find the absurd overreaction to them to be puzzling. What has he said that is so threatening to minorities? Even more importantly, what has he actually done? I find much of the freaking out to be at least overblown. So what exactly has you so terrified of him?

 

 

The real issue with the way he talks is he represents America on the world stage. You yourself can admit he says pretty terrible things. Is this the image we want to portray to the world? Personally I think it makes us look foolish and weak.