And can you still support him?

[oxmixmudd]

You need a new brand of mind reading pills because these ones suck. In reality, I grew up in one of the most liberal states in the nation, California, with parents and extended family that were and still are democrats. I know all about the democrats
and hear plenty about how terrible Trump is. Thing is, you’re sticking your fingers in your ears and closing your eyes in a desperate attempt to flat ignore all the democrat cheating. Clinton did everything you accuse Trump of even thinking about doing and you don’t seem to care one bit. Clinton, not Trump paid foreign intelligence operatives to dig up dirt. Clinton, not Trump attempted to set up political opponents with foreign actors. These things really happened, so keep those fingers jammed in your ears, keep that blindfold secure, and keep screaming, ‘I CAN’T HEAR YOU!’ And all that nasty evidence stuff, where you ignore that Trump’s opponents are as bad as you accuse him of might go away.

Pix - this thread is not about hillary. I am not a fan of hillary and I'm sure hillary did bad things and Im glad to acknowledge she did bad things.

But this thread is about something Trump has done that is very bad and seeing if the Trump followers here at TWEB can actually admit its bad, which they've shown they can't.

So stop trying to refocus this thread on hillary. If you want to talk about hillary, start your own thread and rail on her all you like ... in that other thread.

Jim

[Roy]

They listened to and then did not report a foreign agent advertising dirt on an opposition candidate, which is against the law...

Funny how nobody claiming that has been able to cite the actual legal statute that was violated.

It's been cited (and quoted) several times, including in direct response to you making the exact same claim previously.

[Mountain Man]

It's been cited (and quoted) several times, including in direct response to you making the exact same claim previously.

Refresh my memory. What laws were broken when Jr. met with the Russian babe in Trump Tower? And why didn't Dirty Cop Mueller charge Jr. with a crime?

[Roy]

Refresh my memory. What laws were broken when Jr. met with the Russian babe in Trump Tower? And why didn't Dirty Cop Mueller charge Jr. with a crime?

No. The statute has been cited multiple times. You should be able to find it as well as I can. I'm not going to waste time tracking it down for (at least) the fourth time, because experience shows you'd misunderstand it, then deny it, then forget it, then repeat your falsehood.

[lilpixieofterror]

Pix - this thread is not about hillary. I am not a fan of hillary and I'm sure hillary did bad things and Im glad to acknowledge she did bad things.

But this thread is about something Trump has done that is very bad and seeing if the Trump followers here at TWEB can actually admit its bad, which they've shown they can't.

So stop trying to refocus this thread on hillary. If you want to talk about hillary, start your own thread and rail on her all you like ... in that other thread.

Jim

Sorry Jim, but you’re upset about something Trump said he might do, while making excuses for what Hillary actually did. It goes to show how truly bias you are and how this thread boils down to ‘Orange man bad!’ Hillary actively worked with and hired foreign intelligence officials going as far as to pay them. Not a peep of how wrong this is by the media. Did you ever think the entire goal of such comments was to expose media double standards and lies used to defend media darlings? Of course not because you’re stuck in rage mode. Come back when you stop ignoring real crimes and unethical behavior.

[Mountain Man]

No. The statute has been cited multiple times. You should be able to find it as well as I can. I'm not going to waste time tracking it down for (at least) the fourth time, because experience shows you'd misunderstand it, then deny it, then forget it, then repeat your falsehood.

Your inability to name the actual law that was supposedly violated is noted.

Also noted is your failure to explain why, if Jr. broke the law, Dirty Cop Mueller would decline the opportunity to gain tremendous leverage over the President by indicting his son, or why the dirty cop's report said that "The investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities."

[oxmixmudd]

Sorry Jim, but you’re upset about something Trump said he might do, while making excuses for what Hillary actually did. It goes to show how truly bias you are and how this thread boils down to ‘Orange man bad!’ Hillary actively worked with and hired foreign intelligence officials going as far as to pay them. Not a peep of how wrong this is by the media. Did you ever think the entire goal of such comments was to expose media double standards and lies used to defend media darlings? Of course not because you’re stuck in rage mode. Come back when you stop ignoring real crimes and unethical behavior.

I'm stuck in rage mode?!

Only a person with some sort of irrational obsession with Hillary would dismiss what trump has done with such a response. Hillary is not the president of the united states and in fact appears to be under a continued investigation. OTOH, Donald Trump is the president of the US and his reckless and immoral behavior presents an immediate danger to the national security of the nation. If you feel some need to obsess over hillary and how you think she got away with something she shouldn't have over an immediate danger - that is your choice.

However, at this point you are detracting from the topic at hand, so if you can't find something on topic to say, please stay away. I will invoke moderation if you continue on this tack.

And that goes for those posting in obscurity - stay on topic or go away. Since as a favor to Sparko and others I have MM on ignore to be able to maintain some sense of relative peace in volatile discussions, I am asking the moderators to make sure MM abides by my request as regards continued focus on Hillary's potential misdeeds or opinions about how awful I am for not allowing this thread to be derailed by excessive focus on them.

Thanks,


Jim

[Mountain Man]

Only an idiot would dismiss what trump has done with such a response.

And to think, he put me on ignore because he thought I was too insulting.

Edit: Ah, I see he edited his post shortly after I quoted it, but is claiming that lilpixie has an "irrational obsession with Hillary" really much better?

[oxmixmudd]

It's sort of funny to watch MM respond to my posts knowing I have him on ignore in an attempt to avoid the inevitable clash caused by the fact he knows how to provke me and he appears to enjoy it.

I wonder if he misses my company

Jim

[Roy]

Your inability to name the actual law that was supposedly violated is noted.

It's not inability, it's lack of motivation to find yet again something that you keep denying has been posted and won't bother looking for.

Your inability to remember is noted, as is your gratuitous insult.

[lilpixieofterror]

I'm stuck in rage mode?!

Only a person with some sort of irrational obsession with Hillary would dismiss what trump has done with such a response. Hillary is not the president of the united states and in fact appears to be under a continued investigation. OTOH, Donald Trump is the president of the US and his reckless and immoral behavior presents an immediate danger to the national security of the nation. If you feel some need to obsess over hillary and how you think she got away with something she shouldn't have over an immediate danger - that is your choice.

However, at this point you are detracting from the topic at hand, so if you can't find something on topic to say, please stay away. I will invoke moderation if you continue on this tack.

And that goes for those posting in obscurity - stay on topic or go away. Since as a favor to Sparko and others I have MM on ignore to be able to maintain some sense of relative peace in volatile discussions, I am asking the moderators to make sure MM abides by my request as regards continued focus on Hillary's potential misdeeds or opinions about how awful I am for not allowing this thread to be derailed by excessive focus on them.

Thanks,


Jim

I’m not the one starting thread after thread and going into post after post ranting about Hillary, but you start thread after thread and post after post ranting about Trump. The reality is Hillary actually did the stuff Trump hypothetically said he might do and you make the excuse that ‘well she isn’t president’ as though that excuses away her unethical, immoral, and even illegal behavior. Show me a specific crime and not something that appears to be trolling the media and we’ll talk. For now, all I see is obsession over ‘getting trump’ and excuse making over Hillary’s unethical, immoral, and even criminal actions. The post has been answered, Trump is obviously getting the media into a rage and than setting them up for when all the immoral, unethical, and even criminal behavior of Hillary is made more obvious, you’re just stuck in 24 hour rage mode and simply blinded yourself to anything that contradicts the narrative you’re so desperate to believe. I’ll let you have the last word because it’s obvious you’re not capable of being rational, with anything to do with trump as you let your anger, rage, and hatred consume you. Reality is it doesn’t matter if Hillary isn’t president, she has been a fixture of the government for decades as a former First Lady, a firmer US Senator, a former Secretary of State, and a twice up up presidential candidate. If she is not punished for her unethical, immoral, and criminal behavior, what does that mean?

[Mountain Man]

It's not inability, it's lack of motivation to find yet again something that you keep denying has been posted and won't bother looking for.

Right.

Jr.'s Trump Tower meeting didn't even come close to breaking the law. You know it. I know it. Dirty Cop Mueller knows it. Why else would the dirty cop have given up a golden opportunity to gain a great deal of leverage over the President by indicting Jr.? There were no DOJ rules protecting the President's son from prosecution.

[Zymologist]

Moderated By: Zymologist

The OP has requested that further off-topic discussion, particularly of the Clintons, not take place in this thread. Please honor this request.

***If you wish to take issue with this notice DO NOT do so in this thread.***
Contact the forum moderator or an administrator in Private Message or email instead. If you feel you must publicly complain or whine, please take it to the Padded Room unless told otherwise.

[JimL]

Right.

Jr.'s Trump Tower meeting didn't even come close to breaking the law. You know it.I know it. Dirty Cop Mueller knows it.

Didn't come close? Really MM? Meeting with agents of a foriegn adversary in order to get info valuable to your campaign and potentially damaging to your opponent, doesn't even come close to a crime? The president then writing a false account of the incident in order to cover it up, doesn't come close to a crime? Insufficient evidence to prove a crime is not the same thing as "not coming close to a crime." Sometimes people get away with crimes because ibn the mind of the prosecutor there is insufficient evidence to secure a successful prosecution. That doesn't mean that he doesn't believe that a crime was committed. And sometimes a Special Prosecutor simply spells out the evidence and leaves it to Congress to decide.

Why else would the dirty cop have given up a golden opportunity to gain a great deal of leverage over the President by indicting Jr.? There were no DOJ rules protecting the President's son from prosecution.

Mueller didn't conclude that there was no crime, he concluded that, as a matter of law, he had insufficient evidence to prove a crime. But regardless of whether or not a Trump Jr. committed a crime which could be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, Trump Sr. committed a crime by obstructing the investigation by falsifying an explanation concerning the purpose of the Trump Tower meeting.

[JimL]

Unfortunately for you, Trump is 100% correct: there's no law against listening to what someone has to say, and no law that would compel one to report it to the FBI unless what the person in question tells you is itself illegal.

Furthermore, there is no difference legally speaking between "This person did not commit a crime", "There is no evidence to prove that this person committed a crime", and "There is insufficient evidence to prove that this person committed a crime", because they all say the same thing in the end: "not guilty".

Gee, it's too just bad Trump isn't as dumb and sloppy as you lot claim, otherwise he might not have been so good about covering his tracks to the point that even a corrupt investigator with unlimited scope and resources couldn't find them.

I think (in the bolded above) you've given your true belief away here, MM. You simply don't care, you're a member of the cult.