US Politics Thread 2016-2020

[Skybird]

Something on something that will prevail as harsh reality fact to deal with, no matter what chimp currently is marauding in the White House:

The American way of war is a budget breaker - never has a society spend more for less. - LINK -

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by August

The simple fact is that your entire argument is based on anonymous sources promoted by a hostile media and you're just mad that your opinions aren't being respected. You can play semantics games if you want but that's what you are doing.

"Why do we have no witnesses giving their reports on the crime and perpetrator?"
"They are all dead."
"You mean the suspected crime did not happen?"

[August]

Originally Posted by Skybird

"Why do we have no witnesses giving their reports on the crime and perpetrator?"
"They are all dead."
"You mean the suspected crime did not happen?"

Really it's very simple Skybird.

You have an article written by a biased and hostile media organization that claims to quote unnamed sources who were not even in the room when the statements in question were supposed to be made.

This is versus several people with completely honorable reputations that were actually in the room at the time and all have come forward and publicly said that nothing of the sort happened.

You want me or anyone else to take you seriously? Provide some actual evidence instead of trying to make us believe the veracity of a political hit piece.

[Platapus]

Originally Posted by Nippelspanner

Are you a lawyer/into law in any way?
Sure sounds like it.

No just a policy analyst by education and employment. Lots of law in policy though.

I have wondered about how hard it would be to get another doctorate in law but I am still paying off my current student loans.

Originally Posted by Rockstar

Did you care to read what I wrote at all?

I did, hence my reply.

Originally Posted by Rockstar

What I wrote is called an opinion. This thread is riddled with them so why are you singling me out to provide proof for an opinion? Im no different than you or anyone else here I find a link to an article I agree with and paste it. So I'll start providing proof when you do. OK? Until then take your demands and pack sand.

First of all, I did not single you out at all, that's a ridiculous thing to say. You are just the one posting this and I responded to the content and your claims - not your person.
That can happen on a forum, you know.

So, the study came to the conclusion that Trump mostly gets "negative news coverage"? Well, so?
Maybe, just maybe, the news, including outlets that are usually pro-Trump, report mostly negative about Trump... because there's basically nothing positive to report about, as the study itself implied as well?
What positive things do you want to report about Trump?
His Golf handicap?
What do you expect them to do?
To smile frantically while reporting about his latest failures?
Now don't get me wrong, I sure share your despise when some article/paper/whatever is loaded beyond measure and clearly lost every sense for objectivity - but in case of Trump this doesn't come out of thin air, does it?
While many articles/journalists sure go too far, due tom their own frustration, there is a true core, and a solid reason why they do so in the first place - and it sure isn't "we lost the elections, let's be dicks about it!".
Or do you believe that? Just asking.

It's hardly the "biased medias" fault if this buffoon of a president screws up things on a daily basis, and when he is criticized because the whole God damn world worries about him being in this office, he goes on twitter and whines to his 'kins about how evil the meanies from the press are, abusing their stupidity and naivety to incite more hate.
Yes, he really is in any position to complain, isn't he?

Maybe he should just grab some more Women by the pussy, mock more disabled people, insult American POWs and spice it up with the usual edgy racial slurs.
After that, Ivanka can bring him a lollipop made of gold, because he's really really rich, and things are better already?
She probably can help out with other things mentioned above as well, after all he said:
“Yeah, she’s really something, and what a beauty, that one. If I weren’t happily married and, ya know, her father ...“ - Trump.

But remember people, it's them darn Mexicans that 'send' their worst...
Seriously, if someone complains again that anyone calls Trumpkins deplorable, drop a red pill, or cyanide for all I care.

Further, I asked for something to back up your claims regarding the German ARD group - nothing else.

And in the case of foreign media such as ARD which seemingly has no desire whatsoever to report news but rather attempt to divert the attention of home viewers from their own miserable internal state of affairs.

Maybe you are right, and the ARD is doing what you claimed? That would be horrible, right?
I'd really like to know especially as I am German, as you know.

What's the problem?

Originally Posted by Platapus

No just a policy analyst by education and employment. Lots of law in policy though.

I have wondered about how hard it would be to get another doctorate in law but I am still paying off my current student loans.

"Just"
and
"Another doctorate"

Are you done showing-off?

[mapuc]

Another thought or question from a person outside USA

Is it not in the Americans interest, whether they are supporting Trump, not supporting Trump or are neutral:

Once and for all getting to the bottom of this Trump-Russia allegation ?

I also would say that those who are set to examine this relationship must have peace to do their work.

Markus

[Rockstar]

Looks like you didnt read the whole post and must have missed this part.

"...your opinion I just dont care about it."

Originally Posted by Rockstar

Looks like you didnt read the whole post and must have missed this part.

"...your opinion I just dont care about it."

Ah yes, I expected as much from you.

However, you might have missed the fact that I don't just post when you feel like it, I will post when I feel your posts need to be addressed.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by August

Really it's very simple Skybird.

You have an article written by a biased and hostile media organization that claims to quote unnamed sources who were not even in the room when the statements in question were supposed to be made.

This is versus several people with completely honorable reputations that were actually in the room at the time and all have come forward and publicly said that nothing of the sort happened.

You want me or anyone else to take you seriously? Provide some actual evidence instead of trying to make us believe the veracity of a political hit piece.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protection_of_sources

Dont pretend to be more blinkered than you are. Its easy, and plain reason, and self-explanatory. And I am absolutely certain you know the above.

Its just that this is your way to continue dancing around the Big Donald. Big Donald wants people like you to fall for his show, and you do. Well, that is no compliment for you.

[August]

Originally Posted by Skybird

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protection_of_sources

Dont pretend to be more blinkered than you are. Its easy, and plain reason, and self-explanatory. And I am absolutely certain you know the above.

Its just that this is your way to continue dancing around the Big Donald. Big Donald wants people like you to fall for his show, and you do. Well, that is no compliment for you.

Please stop with the silly insinuations and insults.

Thank God you never entered the legal field because you have some really odd ideas about how things should work. FWIW "Innocent until proven guilty" is a basic tenent of our legal system. You seem to operate on a principle of "guilty until proven innocent".

Show me some evidence Skybird, some real evidence of your claims, instead of fake quotes by fictitious anonymous figures, and then we can talk about who is falling for who's show. Until then all you have is bias, slander and pure hatred, oops i mean "utmost contempt" backing you up which just shows me that you are as disinterested in the truth of the matter as the Democratic party.

[Von Due]

Originally Posted by August

fake quotes by fictitious anonymous figures

Where is the evidence of these being fake quotes by fictitious [...] figures?

Point is, your claims of this being all fake and the figures being non-real demands the same sort of evidence. Where is that evidence?

[August]

Originally Posted by mapuc

Another thought or question from a person outside USA

Is it not in the Americans interest, whether they are supporting Trump, not supporting Trump or are neutral:

Once and for all getting to the bottom of this Trump-Russia allegation ?

I also would say that those who are set to examine this relationship must have peace to do their work.

Markus

Markus you are 100% correct. And I think that this new investigation might finally get to the bottom of who did what and when. I also think that unlike the Trump indictment they hope for, the Democrats, specifically Clinton and Obama, may just find themselves under the microscope too and we know that Clinton has a lot of baggage in that area. Russian uraniaum deals, pay for access, mishandling of classified documents etc.

The shadiest deal that the Clintons hatched with Russia is called Uranium One. This outrage should mushroom into Hillary and Bill’s radioactive Whitewater scandal.

Frank Giustra, a Canadian mining mogul and major Clinton Foundation donor, led a group of investors in an enterprise called Uranium One. On June 8, 2010, Rosatom, the Russian State Atomic Energy Corporation, announced plans to purchase a 51.4 percent stake in the Canadian company, whose international assets included some 20 percent of America’s uranium capacity. Because this active ingredient in atomic reactors and nuclear weapons is a strategic commodity, this $1.3 billion deal required the approval of the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS).

Secretary of State Clinton was one of nine federal department and agency heads on that secretive panel. On June 29, 2010, three weeks after Rosatom proposed to Uranium One, Bill Clinton keynoted a seminar staged by Renaissance Capital in Moscow, a reputedly Kremlin-controlled investment bank that promoted this transaction. Renaissance Capital paid Clinton $500,000 for his one-hour speech.

While CFIUS evaluated Rosatom’s offer, Clinton Cash author Peter Schweizer observed, “a spontaneous outbreak of philanthropy among eight shareholders in Uranium One” began. “These Canadian mining magnates decide now would be a great time to donate tens of millions of dollars to the Clinton Foundation.” These included Uranium One’s then-chairman, Ian Telfer, whose donations to the Clinton Foundation and the Clinton Giustra Sustainable Growth Initiative (CGSGI) totaled $3.1 million. Giustra himself gave $131.3 million to the Clinton Foundation. Before, during, and after CFIUS’s review, Schweizer calculates, “shareholders involved in this transaction had transferred approximately $145 million to the Clinton Foundation or its initiatives.”

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/articl...s-putin-regime

[August]

Originally Posted by Von Due

Where is the evidence of these being fake quotes by fictitious [...] figures?

Point is, your claims of this being all fake and the figures being non-real demands the same sort of evidence. Where is that evidence?

Well I have the public testimony of several people who were actually there to hear what was said. Do you really want to stack that against the deliberately unverifiable claims of an obviously biased newspaper? If Skybird and other Trump haters here can use this story to prove his unsuitability for the job of president then I am quite justified in claiming them as fake. Prove me wrong.

Originally Posted by August

If Skybird and other Trump haters here can use this story to prove his unsuitability for the job of president then I am quite justified in claiming them as fake. Prove me wrong.

> implying it needs this story to be true to make clear how unfit Trump is.

Gotta love it.