Why would you hold a rally 3 weeks into your presidency?
Current Affairs Donald Trump POS: Judgement cometh and that right soon
- Thread starter kithnou
- Start date
- Status
DanEFC92
Player Valuation: £90m
It was last year, mate. Just posted because it's bizarre and hadn't seen it before.
I see. Makes more sense then...the typical political rally used by both parties--bring out the kids for extra cheers.
McBain
Player Valuation: £80m
Hi Bill. Thank you very kindly for responding in this most open of environments. For the record I have noted you have answered only one question directly, and the other three with various questions.
Has any other President given his immediate family who have no experience such high profile jobs within the administration before?
To be fair, the question was directed at the Trumps family all being given prominent roles with no experience. No mention of Obama, who immediate family were not all given high profile jobs within the administration.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...ive-backlash-begins-against-Barack-Obama.html
http://www.revelist.com/politics/america-responds-obama/5855
Obama, born in 1961 graduated from High School in 1979 and moved to Occidental College in California. By 1981 he moved to Columbia University where he majored in Political Science with a specialty in International Relations and English Literature. He graduated with a BA in 1983 and joined Business International Corporation where he campaigned to fix the NYC Subway system. He worked as a Community organiser for Catholic Churches in Chicago between 1985 - 88 and entered Harvard Law School that year. There he became the first ever black president of the Law Review. In the 90's, Obama lectured at the University of Chicago Law School, sat on the boards of several Law firms, was plaintiff in several Civil Rights class action lawsuits against corporation defrauding average citizens, won every single one of them and organized some 400,000 unregistered voters to register and have a say. Obama became a member of the Illinois Senate from the 13th District between Dec 1997 and Nov 2004, and served as US Senator for Illinois between Jan 2005 and Nov 2008. Obama had studied and been a part your own Political, legal, and community systems for the previous 26 years before he became President and had an estimated wealth in 2007 of 4.4 million of which he donated 14% to charity.
Trump, on the other hand, born in 1946, enrolled in the NY Military Academy in 1959 where he attained the rank of Captain in his senior year. He was then transferred and demoted in 1964 for ordering a 'Hazing' of a freshman. He attended the Fordham University in the Bronx then transferred to the Wharton School in Pennsylvania. Not drafted during the Vietnam War, he obtained 4 student deferments during this time. Declared fit for military service in 1966, but within weeks obtained a 1Y medical deferment for 'Heel Spurs'. Between 1968 - 2016 Trump thought about running for public office, but never actually did. In 2000, he filed an exploratory committee to seek approval to run for the Republicans, but polling at 7%, and after winning California and Michigan Primaries, decided not to run.
How do you feel about any obvious conflicts of interests that the Trumps refuse to disclose and the many corporate business leaders now in charge of the trillion dollar public portfolios? Do you actually expect them to have You or your families interests at heart?
Fair enough. You claim he's already wealthy, have you seen any tax returns?
https://www.bloomberg.com/politics/...-spending-on-his-campaign-depends-who-you-ask
http://www.latimes.com/nation/polit...g-ridicule-for-lack-1477672739-htmlstory.html
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/09/donald-trump-business-campaign-trail-228500
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...care-top-adviser-says/?utm_term=.6c4b29b508bc
Has any other Presidents family not lived in the white house and cost taxpayers so much money to protect them? I heard it will be 360 million a year and the NYPD are going to ask to be reimbursed.
Just a question, and nope, no mention from me of Obama anywhere. I'm not really sure why you're bringing him up. Obama and his family all lived in the White House. But FYI...
Time spent on Holidays as of 2015 - Bush 533. Obama 182. Clinton 174. Reagan 390.
http://cf.factcheck.org/2014/08/presidential-vacations/
And finally,
Do the reports of widespread Russian interference in your election just not enter into your thoughts whatsoever? Is it that you think its just a giant mainstream media left wing conspiracy even if your own security agencies say it? Does the price of victory outweigh the costs?
Well, that personal attack is fairly vicious and uncalled for Bill. I'm not even married. Again, no questions relating to 'Election Fraud', even though it has since been proven several of Trumps inner circle have registered in multiple states.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/27/us/politics/trump-cabinet-family-voter-registration.html?_r=0
http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/pol...ll-unsubstantiated-voter-fraud-claims-n712411
No credit due to me Bill. Just 4 simple questions.
x
So I laid out confirmed examples. Your response is "you mist be an idiot". Have you ever heard of an Ad Hominem?
"Alternative facts" lead a healthy portion of your life, huh?
And if course I've heard of them. What makes you think I, in any way shape or form, like obstructionism regardless of party? Government should be about compromise and helping the American people. But you think Republicans didn't obstruct enough? Guess we have different priorities.
Not personally, based on what is known. The operation you're referring to was not initiated by Obama, and the operation--put into action by DEA/ATF/FBI, mostly regional operatives--could be said to be initiated in the interests of national security. These facts are both on public record, at least until those additional documents get released that Obama ordered witheld based on executive privilege. Hence, trying to impeach Obama because of a stupid and reckless DEA/ATF plan is like trying to impeach Clinton for the horrible consequences of Mogadishu, or trying to impeach Bush for deaths relating to the Iraq invasion. The difference being here though, that in each case POTUS gave the go-ahead in the latter two cases, but Obama--so he said--never gave the green-light for fast-n-furious (it was probably, at the time, "too small" of an operation for him to have a direct command on). More generally, impeachment deals with venal motivations of an individual (corruption, lies, perjury, cover-ups), and not the unintended negative consequences of an individual's decisions regarding national interests/security (as when a gun is possibly implicated in killing a US border patrolman based on a poorly thought-out operation), so impeachment for Obama wasn't ever going to happen based on this issue. If it turned out that he was involved more than he said (a cover up), that would be better grounds for impeachment rather than impeaching him based on a poorly thought-out plan.
Every president since Reagan has had demands for impeachment proceedings initiated. Often these proceedings are killed in some committee. Demands for impeachment will be brought against Trump, just like all previous presidents. It is just a matter of whether the demands have any tooth, such that they make it onto the floor.
Thought this thread could use a laugh (at least for the lefties)
Duncan Disordely
Player Valuation: £35m
Very subtle by Budweiser 
. I wonder how many other Super Bowl ads will be political
. I wonder how many other Super Bowl ads will be political
Jib in lad
Player Valuation: £25m
Ashtonian
Banned on request
Sick of hearing about this travel ban now.
It's apparantly racist now. You mean a man stopping non Americans coming into America? Jesus Christ. It's not racist, it's wrong but not racist.
But every president clamps down on immigration and just because Trump goes that little bit further to do it he is branded evil and racist. Why isn't Obama or bush or clinton racist for doing stuff to clamp down on it?
Selective viewpoints. Trump may well be a tit but no one said anything when previous people raised the immigration issue
Side note to all this. Watched a video last night of an American soldier talking about it all and he pointed out he had a conversation with an Iraqi who basically said if he went into town the locals wouod probably take him and kill him due to the hatred caused by Trump. Not terrorists but the people themselves. His point was simple, why wouod they let people who would take the chance to kill an American in their own country into America?
Which is a good point. Not generalisation because I'm not saying every Iraqi wants to kill someone or would do, but it's the resentment of the country that is much more open to something bad happening.
Essentially my point of reason is this, if an American killed an American then fine. It's one citizen killing another and you deal with that. If someone comes I to the country and kills who may have had the intention to beforehand and you can prevent that in a time where you want to protect your border from that then why is that such a terrible issue? Why do we live in a world now when protecting your people from others outside us deemed racist and evil but by not doing it leads to situations like France where they are open to evil actions by others?
Would France have had so many terrorist attacks if people couldn't so easily travel into country?
It's apparantly racist now. You mean a man stopping non Americans coming into America? Jesus Christ. It's not racist, it's wrong but not racist.
But every president clamps down on immigration and just because Trump goes that little bit further to do it he is branded evil and racist. Why isn't Obama or bush or clinton racist for doing stuff to clamp down on it?
Selective viewpoints. Trump may well be a tit but no one said anything when previous people raised the immigration issue
Side note to all this. Watched a video last night of an American soldier talking about it all and he pointed out he had a conversation with an Iraqi who basically said if he went into town the locals wouod probably take him and kill him due to the hatred caused by Trump. Not terrorists but the people themselves. His point was simple, why wouod they let people who would take the chance to kill an American in their own country into America?
Which is a good point. Not generalisation because I'm not saying every Iraqi wants to kill someone or would do, but it's the resentment of the country that is much more open to something bad happening.
Essentially my point of reason is this, if an American killed an American then fine. It's one citizen killing another and you deal with that. If someone comes I to the country and kills who may have had the intention to beforehand and you can prevent that in a time where you want to protect your border from that then why is that such a terrible issue? Why do we live in a world now when protecting your people from others outside us deemed racist and evil but by not doing it leads to situations like France where they are open to evil actions by others?
Would France have had so many terrorist attacks if people couldn't so easily travel into country?
Immigration and a travel ban are two entirely different things.
No, it is clearly racist. The reasoning behind the ban is grounded in racism. There is no logic to back up this claim that banning citizens from the seven countries is making America safer.
As for France, how is that relevant ? Most of the attackers were born in Europe ?
Clint Planet
Utter Cad.
Absolutely.
- Status