Countdown To President Trump Re-election

quip

BANNED
Banned
[George Floyd's death]

Not a killing, not a murder. An unintentional suicide.

In reality, the specifics are overshadowed by the general representation of how blacks (blameless or accusable as each case may be) are unjustly treated by our justice system. Once again, your anecdote misses the mark....probably on purpose.
 

ok doser

lifeguard at the cement pond
We currently don't have unbiased media and the story always slants one way. I don't quote the news these days unless and until I do my own research. They just cannot be trusted to give a straight story.

Lon

The CBC did the same thing with the Daniel Prude story - the spit hood, the man who died in custody, in Rochester, my old home town.

Like most of the leftist reporting that I saw it was characterized as a "mental health episode" - no mention of the coroner's report finding of acute PCP intoxication.
 

annabenedetti

like marbles on glass
IYNbHcg.png
 

annabenedetti

like marbles on glass
https://twitter.com/ndrew_lawrence/status/1304148280843141127?s=20

Screen-Shot-2020-09-11-at-7-54-21-PM.png


"I watched Liz McDonald. She’s fantastic.
I watched Fox Business.
I watched Lou Dobbs last night,
Sean Hannity last night,
Tucker last night,
Laura.
I watched Fox & Friends in the morning."



Wait for it...


“People that don’t know me, they like to say I watch television — people with fake sources. You know, fake reporters, fake sources. But I don’t get to watch much television. Primarily because of documents. I’m reading documents. A lot. I actually read much more — I read you people much more than I watch television.”

Recently he told Peter Baker, “I don’t watch very much TV. Nobody knows what I do. I work very long hours, actually, very long hours, probably longer than just about anybody.”
 

annabenedetti

like marbles on glass
The health department’s politically appointed communications aides have demanded the right to review and seek changes to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s weekly scientific reports charting the progress of the coronavirus pandemic, in what officials characterized as an attempt to intimidate the reports’ authors and water down their communications to health professionals.

In some cases, emails from communications aides to CDC Director Robert Redfield and other senior officials openly complained that the agency’s reports would undermine President Donald Trump's optimistic messages about the outbreak, according to emails reviewed by POLITICO and three people familiar with the situation.
 

Lon

Well-known member
So, according to you, lying under oath is fine with you as long as the information is not important to you? :think:
Er, no. BUT witch hunts shouldn't be part of that investigation. Let's say you lie under oath, that you have two children. For whatever reason, the attorney wanted you to admit that you are living with a woman and the two children are not your own. Okay, so the accusation is 1) "Lied under oath." :nono: I believe YOU over that prosecuter. Second, does it have ANYthing to do with the issue under investigation? If not: witch hunt.

Do you believe something asserted "under oath" - by default - remains unimportant or are you cherry-picking (again) what should be important to American citizens?
You've NEVER demonstrated to any satisfaction, any cherry-picking the first time :noway: You are given to blanket statements without substantiation, often. This isn't the first time I've called you on this... :plain:

Do you have evidence that the Trumps are trustworthy?
This part of the conversation is about the Huckabees.
 

jgarden

BANNED
Banned
Countdown To President Trump Re-election

Apparently the White House and Attorney General Barr have been putting pressure on the Durham Investigation to produce some self-serving revelation that the Trump Campaign can use to reverse the Presidents downward decline in the polls!

The lead investigator has just resigned her post, leading to speculation that she refused to be party to the investigation being used for partisan politics - in the past the DOJ withheld the results of investigations until after elections because it didn't want to be seen as influencing the political process!

This President and his Attorney General share no such concerns to provide for a "fair" election - they welcome any and all assistance, either from foreign sources or domestic, that would provide them with an advantage and are not above "politicizing" the whole federal government to achieve their goals!

Whatever revelation that might surface between now and the 2020 Election, it will be so politically compromised that only the Trump faithful will give it any credibility - there's not enough of them to get Trump re-elected and even the Republican majority in the Senate is now within reach!
 
Last edited:

quip

BANNED
Banned
Er, no. BUT witch hunts shouldn't be part of that investigation.

Witch hunts? You're using subjective terms as a rationalization. One man's witch hunt is another man's search for truth. This brings us to: Is lying under oath a moral or immoral action? Re: Trump lied under oath.

You've NEVER demonstrated to any satisfaction, any cherry-picking the first time :noway: You are given to blanket statements without substantiation, often. This isn't the first time I've called you on this... :plain:
Likewise, this isn't the first time I've had to explain that I'm asking you a question ...as it appears to me that you're employing a double standard regarding Trump's lying. Your defensive responses thus far have failed to show otherwise.

This part of the conversation is about the Huckabees.

Our conversation has been about Trump lying under oath.
 

Arthur Brain

Well-known member
https://twitter.com/ndrew_lawrence/status/1304148280843141127?s=20

Screen-Shot-2020-09-11-at-7-54-21-PM.png


"I watched Liz McDonald. She’s fantastic.
I watched Fox Business.
I watched Lou Dobbs last night,
Sean Hannity last night,
Tucker last night,
Laura.
I watched Fox & Friends in the morning."



Wait for it...


“People that don’t know me, they like to say I watch television — people with fake sources. You know, fake reporters, fake sources. But I don’t get to watch much television. Primarily because of documents. I’m reading documents. A lot. I actually read much more — I read you people much more than I watch television.”

Recently he told Peter Baker, “I don’t watch very much TV. Nobody knows what I do. I work very long hours, actually, very long hours, probably longer than just about anybody.”

It's almost as hysterical as it is sad...
 

Lon

Well-known member
Witch hunts? You're using subjective terms as a rationalization. One man's witch hunt is another man's search for truth. This brings us to: Is lying under oath a moral or immoral action? Re: Trump lied under oath.
I WASN'T talking about Trump! I was talking, in context, with Anna, about the Huckabees. While you WANT to talk about Trump, I never entered that conversation. You are simply trying to place ME in YOUR preconceptions. It is YOU who are subjective, perhaps rationalizing, but I've no idea what you are even talking about. We are carrying on two different conversations and I never have addressed you. You started (given below) with something I said to Anna and the Trumps were never part of my conversation, just what was, and wasn't said. I don't really care about choosing sides, just if information is pertinent and what was actually said. I don't really care about anything but that which is substantiated, not simply 'accused.'

Likewise, this isn't the first time I've had to explain that I'm asking you a question ...as it appears to me that you're employing a double standard regarding Trump's lying. Your defensive responses thus far have failed to show otherwise.
I haven't even addressed your question concerning Trump. My concern is very singular: Whether Huckabee Sanders is to be trusted or not.


Our conversation has been about Trump lying under oath.
Incorrect, I was talking to Anna when you showed up with this:
So, according to you, lying under oath is fine with you as long as the information is not important to you? :think:

Do you believe something asserted "under oath" - by default - remains unimportant or are you cherry-picking (again) what should be important to American citizens?

Do you have evidence that the Trumps are trustworthy?

You COULD be more clear in your initial inquiry. You mention 'Trump' in your very last sentence. The mention was that he said something about veterans but the question was whether he said it, or it was merely an unfounded/unfoundable accusation. For me? I don't care, just as long as it isn't gossip, and whatever is said can be verified. If not, I'm against spreading such as merely gossip. I don't really do 'sides' in politics often, just discuss whether any particular post is true or not.
 

jgarden

BANNED
Banned
Countdown To President Trump Re-election

As the clock ticks down and Trump's defeat becomes more inevitable, the nation needs to prepare itself for an increasingly desperate President making the transition from campaigning to finding excuses to postpone the 2020 Election and/or reasons not to accept the results!
 

quip

BANNED
Banned
I WASN'T talking about Trump! I was talking, in context, with Anna, about the Huckabees. While you WANT to talk about Trump, I never entered that conversation. You are simply trying to place ME in YOUR preconceptions. It is YOU who are subjective, perhaps rationalizing, but I've no idea what you are even talking about. We are carrying on two different conversations and I never have addressed you. You started (given below) with something I said to Anna and the Trumps were never part of my conversation, just what was, and wasn't said. I don't really care about choosing sides, just if information is pertinent and what was actually said. I don't really care about anything but that which is substantiated, not simply 'accused.'


I haven't even addressed your question concerning Trump. My concern is very singular: Whether Huckabee Sanders is to be trusted or not.


Incorrect, I was talking to Anna when you showed up with this:


You COULD be more clear in your initial inquiry. You mention 'Trump' in your very last sentence. The mention was that he said something about veterans but the question was whether he said it, or it was merely an unfounded/unfoundable accusation. For me? I don't care, just as long as it isn't gossip, and whatever is said can be verified. If not, I'm against spreading such as merely gossip. I don't really do 'sides' in politics often, just discuss whether any particular post is true or not.

:rolleyes:
Spare me Lon. You know exactly what the discussion was about....you're stonewalling. I've received my answer nonetheless....you've become a -------, time waster. :wave2:
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Top