Trump's Second and Third year in office
Quote: BozDamn, not even AMS has accused him of F’N young boys......yet.
And while I semi understand, not sure anyone totally can, where you are coming from, I’m not sure who you think would be any better.
Nor have I. Nor have I accused him of raping young girls. Nor have I accused him of rape. Nor have I accused him of sexual assault. Nor do I equate priesthood with little kid touching. I think you'd have trouble finding me accusing him of anything save for things that have been factually proven (tax cheat, trust fund kid not genius businessman, et al). I've no need to reach; his proven transgressions are plenty enough for me.
My comment was a reference to King Henry II. I've no filter before noon.
Quote: billryanReally. Who are you going to trust, the FBI with it's never trump agenda or our patriotic troll farms?
Trusting the FBI is like trusting Jeffrey Epstein to babysit your kids.
By all accounts, the FBI has never set foot in Santa Ana. Maybe they're too scared. Even during the big war, the U.S. advisers were restricted from the city, which was not under attack, except for MS-13. Even the international intelligence agency has long been leery about going to the city, which is mostly quite attractive. In sum, it is painfully obvious how unsuccessful the FBI has been in controlling the thousands of gang members. So much as to their "news stories."Quote: rxwineFrom the FBIs own site.
https://archives.fbi.gov/archives/news/stories/2008/january/ms13_011408
Quote: rxwineSome of the documents just released from the Cohen investigation may cause Hope Hicks some perjury issues. Since it's directly related to what Trump may have known about hush money payments, should be interesting.
Today's release seems to indicate they plan on moving on this case when they can indict him in two years.
129 total judges confirmed
84 District Court judges
43 Circuit Court judges
2 Supreme Court justices
The Senate confirmed President Trump’s 43rd circuit court nominee Tuesday Jul 16th, far outpacing Obama who only saw 19 federal circuit court judges appointed during the same period of time.
The confirmation of a circuit court judge also puts the president ahead of President George W. Bush, who saw just 30 circuit court judges appointed in his first two and a half years in office.
Making the judiciary great again!!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_federal_judges_appointed_by_Barack_Obama
Quote: Dalex64Here is a list of approximately 350 federal judges appointed by President Obama
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_federal_judges_appointed_by_Barack_Obama
Yawn.
If President Trump continues to have his nominated judges confirmed at the current pace through the remainder of this term and during his second term, he will easily eclipse the number appointed by Odumdum.
Quote: Fleaswatter2 more judges confirmed by the senate this week (1 circuit and 1 district).
129 total judges confirmed
84 District Court judges
43 Circuit Court judges
2 Supreme Court justices
The Senate confirmed President Trump’s 43rd circuit court nominee Tuesday Jul 16th, far outpacing Obama who only saw 19 federal circuit court judges appointed during the same period of time.
The confirmation of a circuit court judge also puts the president ahead of President George W. Bush, who saw just 30 circuit court judges appointed in his first two and a half years in office.
Making the judiciary great again!!
Well, then, yawn back at you. Pretty tiresome that you keep posting these as a gloating stick in people's eyes. Have a serving of your own back while your mouth's open.
Quote: beachbumbabsWell, then, yawn back at you. Pretty tiresome that you keep posting these as a gloating stick in people's eyes. Have a serving of your own back while your mouth's open.
Well, be prepared to get tired because I will continue to keep posting updates as changes occur.
By the way, this thread is about President Trump's second and third year in office.
P.S. I didn't realize that it was only acceptable to gloat about the bad things President Trump does.
Quote: Fleaswatter
Well, be prepared to get tired because I will continue to keep posting updates as changes occur.
By the way, this thread is about President Trump's second and third year in office.
P.S. I didn't realize that it was only acceptable to gloat about the bad things President Trump does.
No, but maybe only doing it once a month would be nice? What difference is does it make whether he appointed 127 judges or 129 judges? Or 152 judges? Or 543 judges? I don't remember any Obama supporter doing this when the forum bickered back and forth about him. We had more important things to bicker over like Merrick Garland. Doing this every time is also questionable with respect to rule #5.
I will think about it.Quote: tringlomane
No, but maybe only doing it once a month would be nice?
Because I care. Also, why can't there be positive posts about President Trump's here?Quote:What difference is does it make whether he appointed 127 judges or 129 judges? Or 152 judges? Or 543 judges?
What difference does this make? If people do not like my posts, there is an option to block them.Quote:I don't remember any Obama supporter doing this when the forum bickered back and forth about him. We had more important things to bicker over like Merrick Garland.
P.S. I have noticed more "important" things to bicker about over here. ;-)
I do not post the SAME message. My posts always have different/updated information.Quote:Doing this every time is also questionable with respect to rule #5.
BBB has said way more negative things about Trump than this guy has said positive things. And of course, there are so many more positive things about Trump than negative :-)Quote: tringlomaneQuote: Fleaswatter
Well, be prepared to get tired because I will continue to keep posting updates as changes occur.
By the way, this thread is about President Trump's second and third year in office.
P.S. I didn't realize that it was only acceptable to gloat about the bad things President Trump does.
No, but maybe only doing it once a month would be nice?
In my opinion, the moderators should not be participating in Trump discussions.
Quote: AxelWolfBBB has said way more negative things about Trump than this guy has said positive things. And of course, there are so many more positive things about Trump than negative :-)Quote: tringlomaneQuote: Fleaswatter
Well, be prepared to get tired because I will continue to keep posting updates as changes occur.
By the way, this thread is about President Trump's second and third year in office.
P.S. I didn't realize that it was only acceptable to gloat about the bad things President Trump does.
No, but maybe only doing it once a month would be nice?
In my opinion, the moderators should not be participating in Trump discussions.
But at least what BBB is saying generally argues new points relating to Trump. Do you care to know exactly how many judges Trump added this week? Maybe you righties all do, but we do have tons of posts to wade through about him already. I certainly don't read them all. Has anyone really changed their mind about Trump on here ever since he got elected? I generally sense not. Even if Trump's actions helped get me a very well-paying job, I'd still hate the a-hole. Why? Because to me, he is an a-hole, and there is nothing in hell that will change my mind on that.
Quote: AxelWolf
In my opinion, the moderators should not be participating in Trump discussions.
Strongly disagree. The active non Wizard moderators (Face, BBB, OD) all started as regular members and became mods later. I appreciate the input each of them gives on the political forums as well as the gambling ones. It would be a loss to lose them from any discussion.
Quote: tringlomaneQuote: AxelWolfBBB has said way more negative things about Trump than this guy has said positive things. And of course, there are so many more positive things about Trump than negative :-)Quote: tringlomaneQuote: Fleaswatter
Well, be prepared to get tired because I will continue to keep posting updates as changes occur.
By the way, this thread is about President Trump's second and third year in office.
P.S. I didn't realize that it was only acceptable to gloat about the bad things President Trump does.
No, but maybe only doing it once a month would be nice?
In my opinion, the moderators should not be participating in Trump discussions.
But at least what BBB is saying generally argues new points relating to Trump. Do you care to know exactly how many judges Trump added this week? Maybe you righties all do, but we do have tons of posts to wade through about him already. I certainly don't read them all. Has anyone really changed their mind about Trump on here ever since he got elected? I generally sense not. Even if Trump's actions helped get me a very well-paying job, I'd still hate the a-hole. Why? Because to me, he is an a-hole, and there is nothing in hell that will change my mind on that.
Emphasis mine.
Ah, circular reasoning. Gotta love it.
Maybe it’s not circular reasoning. Don’t worry, not accusing you of asking a loaded question. That’d be like asking if you still beat your wife.
I don’t care about all these dumb*** hoaxes the left keeps pushing regularly, yet here we are...
And yes, I’ve changed my mind on Trump since he got elected thanks to posts here and other social media.
Quote: SOOPOOStrongly disagree. The active non Wizard moderators (Face, BBB, OD) all started as regular members and became mods later. I appreciate the input each of them gives on the political forums as well as the gambling ones. It would be a loss to lose them from any discussion.
First they came for the mods...
... and SOOPOO stood.
okay, fair enough, but then they should restrain from moderating the political threads. Just leave it up to Mike or someone who doesn't participate in them all that often. I think even TWMOAT could do an okay job.Quote: SOOPOOStrongly disagree. The active non Wizard moderators (Face, BBB, OD) all started as regular members and became mods later. I appreciate the input each of them gives on the political forums as well as the gambling ones. It would be a loss to lose them from any discussion.
Quote: rxwineModerators have to review all the crap that people flag. Let them do what they want.
You can't flag anyone worth flagging in here. You can only flag spambots. At the forum I moderate, ANY post can be reported by any member. But thanks to the NO POLITICS rule, 3 in a week is a busy week.
Quote: AxelWolf
In my opinion, the moderators should not be participating in Trump discussions.
Totally agree. Whether they know it
or not they have a bias against
those they argue with all the time.
Mods should not take a stand on
anything. It's like the ref's in a
football game all on the side of one
team. No way can they be impartial.
Quote: EvenBobTotally agree. Whether they know it
or not they have a bias against
those they argue with all the time.
Mods should not take a stand on
anything. It's like the ref's in a
football game all on the side of one
team. No way can they be impartial.
Another post I modified because I am still drinking.
Quote: EvenBobNo way can they be impartial.
Where's the rule saying that mods have to be impartial?
Quote: tringlomane
But at least what BBB is saying generally argues new points relating to Trump. Do you care to know exactly how many judges Trump added this week? Maybe you righties all do, but we do have tons of posts to wade through about him already. I certainly don't read them all. Has anyone really changed their mind about Trump on here ever since he got elected? I generally sense not. Even if Trump's actions helped get me a very well-paying job, I'd still hate the a-hole. Why? Because to me, he is an a-hole, and there is nothing in hell that will change my mind on that.
Maybe for some people, when Trump does something that a normal president is supposed to do, like filling open positions, it is a cause for celebration and gloating.
Quote: AxelWolfBBB has said way more negative things about Trump than this guy has said positive things. And of course, there are so many more positive things about Trump than negative :-)Quote: tringlomaneQuote: Fleaswatter
Well, be prepared to get tired because I will continue to keep posting updates as changes occur.
By the way, this thread is about President Trump's second and third year in office.
P.S. I didn't realize that it was only acceptable to gloat about the bad things President Trump does.
No, but maybe only doing it once a month would be nice?
In my opinion, the moderators should not be participating in Trump discussions.
Thanks for your opinion. You're free to express one here, as am I. I didn't give up my free speech rights when I was asked to do this job.
And you're missing the point about why I called out fleaswatter's frequently posted running tally. I'm not going to go back and count them, but he's posted the same info at least a dozen times, with a climbing total.
It's not about posting "positive" news. It's about trolling the people who objected to Garland's getting screwed, Cavanaugh, and Trump's continuing refusal to do any government business EXCEPT getting ultra-right judges appointed (among other related incendiary issues), by continually posting a rising tally. His reason for posting it is to trigger and inflame. And gloat that judges who satisfy HIS agenda are being appointed.
Funny how somebody whose livelihood depends on reading between the lines would miss this. I would have thought you would admire the technique.
At least we don’t have to debate if the mod in question is or isn’t biased.
Clearly saves time for everyone. Or makes anyone who wanted to argue it look like a fool.
Quote: Boz“Garland’s getting screwed.”
At least we don’t have to debate if the mod in question is or isn’t biased.
Clearly saves time for everyone. Or makes anyone who wanted to argue it look like a fool.
Garland. Didn't even get a vote. In almost a year after his nomination. In a Senate where the turd McConnell already admitted he wouldn't apply the same bogus standard (not calling a vote in an election year) if Trump has an open SCOTUS seat in the same period of his presidency. You don't want a nominee in there, vote him down. That's how it works.
Wherever you may stand on the political spectrum, if you have ANY respect for our democracy, you have to admit Garland got screwed.
Quote: beachbumbabsGarland. Didn't even get a vote. In almost a year after his nomination. In a Senate where the turd McConnell already admitted he wouldn't apply the same bogus standard (not calling a vote in an election year) if Trump has an open SCOTUS seat in the same period of his presidency. You don't want a nominee in there, vote him down. That's how it works.
Wherever you may stand on the political spectrum, if you have ANY respect for our democracy, you have to admit Garland got screwed.
And it will be used again in the future as setting the example for both parties. Just as Joe Biden discussed in 1992.
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/23/us/politics/joe-biden-argued-for-delaying-supreme-court-picks-in-1992.html
The only time I would argue it was right would be between the election and the inauguration.
Quote: beachbumbabsHis reason for posting it is to trigger and inflame.
It surprises me that you never call out posters who "share your views" for doing this on an almost daily basis who degrade, insult, demean, malign, denounce, disparage, bash, slam, trash, knock, deplore etc etc etc , President Trump
Quote: beachbumbabsQuote: AxelWolfBBB has said way more negative things about Trump than this guy has said positive things. And of course, there are so many more positive things about Trump than negative :-)Quote: tringlomaneQuote: Fleaswatter
Well, be prepared to get tired because I will continue to keep posting updates as changes occur.
By the way, this thread is about President Trump's second and third year in office.
P.S. I didn't realize that it was only acceptable to gloat about the bad things President Trump does.
No, but maybe only doing it once a month would be nice?
In my opinion, the moderators should not be participating in Trump discussions.
Thanks for your opinion. You're free to express one here, as am I. I didn't give up my free speech rights when I was asked to do this job.
And you're missing the point about why I called out fleaswatter's frequently posted running tally. I'm not going to go back and count them, but he's posted the same info at least a dozen times, with a climbing total.
It's not about posting "positive" news. It's about trolling the people who objected to Garland's getting screwed, Cavanaugh, and Trump's continuing refusal to do any government business EXCEPT getting ultra-right judges appointed (among other related incendiary issues), by continually posting a rising tally. His reason for posting it is to trigger and inflame. And gloat that judges who satisfy HIS agenda are being appointed.
Funny how somebody whose livelihood depends on reading between the lines would miss this. I would have thought you would admire the technique.
Yep, definitely triggered.😀
Quote: BozAnd it will be used again in the future as setting the example for both parties. Just as Joe Biden discussed in 1992.
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/23/us/politics/joe-biden-argued-for-delaying-supreme-court-picks-in-1992.html
If its now established as a rule fine.
But McConnell is on record saying he would ignore this new rule if the same situation comes up during trump's presidency.
Hmmm
Quote: FleaswatterIt surprises me that you never call out posters who "share your views" for doing this on an almost daily basis who degrade, insult, demean, malign, denounce, disparage, bash, slam, trash, knock, deplore etc etc etc , President Trump
You're posting THE SAME THING many times. It's tiresome and i said so. Says a lot about you and your motives for doing so, that you're continuing to argue your false premise of equivalency.
Quote: Fleaswatter
Well, be prepared to get tired because I will continue to keep posting updates as changes occur.
By the way, this thread is about President Trump's second and third year in office.
P.S. I didn't realize that it was only acceptable to gloat about the bad things President Trump does.
I think it's cute when people imagine they have some power over someone.
Tell that to crooked Menendez.Quote: Dalex64Maybe for some people, when Trump does something that a normal president is supposed to do, like filling open positions, it is a cause for celebration and gloating.
Quote: billryanQuote: Fleaswatter
I dated a couple women like that in
the 70's. They were triggered by
anything and everything. I dated
one for a few weeks and when I
stopped calling she wanted to
know why I quit chasing her. She
really had no clue that she was
over the top insane."It's not called gambling if the math is on your side."
The fast talking guy seems like a real a hole.
A lot of these people are a holes.
Quote: GWAEWatching this muller testimony. I am sorta ignorant on this entire subject. I find this hilarious. Muller is either really confused or he is just really old. I wonder if his people told him to stall and to have them reask questions so they dont get as many in in 5 minutes.
The fast talking guy seems like a real a hole.
A lot of these people are a holes.
No kidding. Attacking honest investigators simply due to politics disgusts me
I totally supported Ken Starr investigating that disgusting Bill Clinton
I totally support Mueller investigating that disgusting Donald Trump
I don't trust anybody in DC regardless of Dem or Rep
Quote: GWAEWatching this muller testimony. I am sorta ignorant on this entire subject. I find this hilarious. Muller is either really confused or he is just really old. I wonder if his people told him to stall and to have them reask questions so they dont get as many in in 5 minutes.
The fast talking guy seems like a real a hole.
A lot of these people are a holes.
You have to keep in mind this is all performance art.
People refuse to read the actual report.
So Republicans and Trump can lie about what it contains, and get believed. Dems are trying to get soundbites they can loop endlessly so they have sound and video of Mueller saying what he actually found.
Republicans are trying to get video and sound they can endlessly loop discrediting Mueller, his team, or his investigation.
I haven't had a chance to see any of it, but it sounds like neither may have accomplished their objectives. Guess I'll find out.
I know some of our righties will try to pin this on Bill Clinton, but I’m gonna go ahead and recklessly claim that Donald put the hit out on him. He has more to lose.
Quote: GWAEMuller is either really confused or he is just really old.
He's confused and 75. He's confused
because he's obviously never read
his own report and had nothing to
do with the writing of it. He's the
well known figurehead on the door
of the law firm you hire. You never
get the old fart who's name is in
gold on the glass door, you get one
of his eager sycophants. In this case
you got 19 eager Clinton cronies who were
positive they could bury Trump. Uh oh,
they never figured Trump could actually
be innocent of any crimes. Guess who's
in the WH tonight having the last laugh.
Quote: ams288Jeffrey Epstein found injured in his jail cell in possible suicide attempt or assault.
I know some of our righties will try to pin this on Bill Clinton, but I’m gonna go ahead and recklessly claim that Donald put the hit out on him. He has more to lose.
He'll be under watch now. So, maybe he'll be alive long enough to testify in court.
IMO, there’s some shifty fishy stuff going on behind the scenes, like Mueller isn’t really the head of the investigation, just the face of it. Maybe the Clintons gave him some incentive. 🤣🤣
Quote: RSThe 30 minutes of it that I watched, I was shocked (SHOCKED!) how bad it was. Granted, I don’t know all the ins and outs of this stuff, but seemed like an awful lot of “that’s outside of my purview” answers to stuff it seems like Mueller should have known about. Also seemed like Mueller was pretty dazed and confused during that period.
IMO, there’s some shifty fishy stuff going on behind the scenes, like Mueller isn’t really the head of the investigation, just the face of it. Maybe the Clintons gave him some incentive. 🤣🤣
No.
Muellers whole objective (I say again) was to avoid being video'd saying things that would be made into sound bytes by either party.
The investigation had a very narrow window of discovery. Anything (and there was a lot) that came to light but was not directly related to the scope of inquiry was shoved to a different investigatory agency.
He did not elaborate on any of that, on purpose. He only allowed mostly yes or no questions directly related to the actual report, also on purpose.
It was all a show.
Quote: beachbumbabsYou have to keep in mind this is all performance art.
People refuse to read the actual report.
So Republicans and Trump can lie about what it contains, and get believed. Dems are trying to get soundbites they can loop endlessly so they have sound and video of Mueller saying what he actually found.
Republicans are trying to get video and sound they can endlessly loop discrediting Mueller, his team, or his investigation.
I haven't had a chance to see any of it, but it sounds like neither may have accomplished their objectives. Guess I'll find out.
Yeah like I said I am ignorant on politics. I dont even know what left and right are. I loved how he asked them to repeat questions over and over. Then if they noted a page he would make them wait until he found it. It appeared that he was just trying to waste some time to allow less questions. The funniest part was when they sighted something on page 1. He was like uhhh give me a sec while I look at it. Then couldn't find it and asked what page again. The rep was like PAGE 1. Then he said ok.. looked again and then asked where at on page 1.
I was a little annoyed while the reps would give a 2 minute "question" and at the end there wasnt really a question. It was basically a 2 minute speech
Rudy Giuliani, Estranged Wife Argue in Court Over His Free Trump Legal Work (she filed for divorce in 2018 and says he claims to be broke)
Quote:“Not only is he working pro bono for the president, for this individual, but it’s costing him money,” said Bernard Clair, who represents Judith. “Not only does he work for free, but all of his expenses, every time he goes down to Washington, D.C., every time he travels for the president… it comes out of his own pocket.”
“Mr. Giuliani has taken it upon himself to radically change the financial status quo that existed prior to this action,” Clair had told Justice Michael Katz, calling it “conduct that can only be characterized as SIDS... sudden income deficit syndrome.”
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/rudy-giuliani-estranged-wife-argue-in-court-over-his-free-trump-legal-work/ar-AAER4Ww?ocid=spartandhp
our members have been educating me, it goes like this, left bad, right good.Quote: GWAEYeah like I said I am ignorant on politics. I dont even know what left and right are. I loved how he asked them to repeat questions over and over. Then if they noted a page he would make them wait until he found it. It appeared that he was just trying to waste some time to allow less questions. The funniest part was when they sighted something on page 1. He was like uhhh give me a sec while I look at it. Then couldn't find it and asked what page again. The rep was like PAGE 1. Then he said ok.. looked again and then asked where at on page 1.
I was a little annoyed while the reps would give a 2 minute "question" and at the end there wasnt really a question. It was basically a 2 minute speech
Quote: AxelWolfour members have been educating me, it goes like this, left bad, right good.
Close but too simplistic. It's more
like Left wants everything for
nothing (socialism) Right wants
to work hard and have a minimum
intrusion from gov't into our private
lives.
well then Force everybody to register Republican or Democrat and the working Republicans can pay for all the non- working Republicans free stuff .Quote: EvenBobClose but too simplistic. It's more
like Left wants everything for
nothing (socialism) Right wants
to work hard and have a minimum
intrusion from gov't into our private
lives.
