SuzukiSavage.com /cgi-bin/YaBB.pl General Category >> Politics, Religion (Tall Table) >> 22%.... /cgi-bin/YaBB.pl?num=1500316037 Message started by T And T Garage on 07/17/17 at 11:27:16

Title: 22%.... Post by T And T Garage on 07/17/17 at 11:27:16 So, about all those Obama vacations...... http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world-0/donald-trump-plays-golf-course-virginia-scotland-white-house-g20-summit-a7832146.html Hypocrite, man-child, thin-skinned, petulant, incompetent. Pathetic.

Title: Re: 22%.... Post by Serowbot on 07/17/17 at 11:33:55 “I love golf but if I were in the White House, I don’t think I’d ever see Turnberry again,” he said last year. “I’d just want to stay in the White House and work my tushy off.” ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D...

Title: Re: 22%.... Post by raydawg on 07/17/17 at 11:43:20 Amazing how they seem to forget stuff, huh  ;D. On his first day in office, President Barack Obama pledged to run "the most transparent administration in history." As he prepares to move out of the White House, the phrase will probably be remembered as a sarcastic punchline. But hey, it's only the other party we need to fix, eh sweetie, luv ya :-*

Title: Re: 22%.... Post by T And T Garage on 07/17/17 at 11:47:56 60736B76736575120 wrote: Amazing how they seem to forget stuff, huh  ;D. On his first day in office, President Barack Obama pledged to run "the most transparent administration in history." As he prepares to move out of the White House, the phrase will probably be remembered as a sarcastic punchline. But hey, it's only the other party we need to fix, eh sweetie, luv ya :-* Ray - you're telling me you can't see the hypocrisy???? C'mon..... I call shenanigans on that. There's no way you can defend our president - especially when HE HIMSELF tweeted about Obama's vacations!!!! Yeah - I get what Obama did... but the pubs called him out.  Now with this president - nada. I mean seriously....

Title: Re: 22%.... Post by Serowbot on 07/17/17 at 11:52:44 The only thing transparent about Trump is his imaginary wall...

Title: Re: 22%.... Post by raydawg on 07/17/17 at 12:12:46 756B646568756E73010 wrote: [quote author=60736B76736575120 link=1500316037/0#2 date=1500317000]Amazing how they seem to forget stuff, huh  ;D. On his first day in office, President Barack Obama pledged to run "the most transparent administration in history." As he prepares to move out of the White House, the phrase will probably be remembered as a sarcastic punchline. But hey, it's only the other party we need to fix, eh sweetie, luv ya :-* Ray - you're telling me you can't see the hypocrisy???? C'mon..... I call shenanigans on that. There's no way you can defend our president - especially when HE HIMSELF tweeted about Obama's vacations!!!! Yeah - I get what Obama did... but the pubs called him out.  Now with this president - nada. I mean seriously....[/quote] Oh no, I get it....   What I find amusing is that folks choose to ignore the shoe when it's on the other foot. It like the little boy who cried wolf. No one listens, because the issue is NOT enforced equally, but of self promotion. You ridicule others sources, of those against your beliefs, yet expect others to accept yours with a, "Golly, I didn't know that." When I said on another thread folks need to clean their OWN closet first, that is why. You want to point out dirt, but ignore your own filth. I am just trying to point out the fallacy AND insanity to continuing this hypocrisy on BOTH SIDES. It is becoming fever pitch, the ugliness rampant, the stuff I read on comments at websites is unhinged, BOTH SIDES.... It's scary  :-/

Title: Re: 22%.... Post by T And T Garage on 07/17/17 at 12:22:30 64776F72776171160 wrote: Oh no, I get it....   What I find amusing is that folks choose to ignore the shoe when it's on the other foot. Yes - exactly what the right is doing - correct? It like the little boy who cried wolf. No one listens, because the issue is NOT enforced equally, but of self promotion. Not so.  This is merely one person pointing out hypocrisy.  I'm not championing the dems on this - I'm stating facts. You ridicule others sources, of those against your beliefs, yet expect others to accept yours with a, "Golly, I didn't know that." No - I expect them to challenge my sources and my beliefs and prove me wrong.  If they can't, then there is no argument. Remember ray - no one has to post on a thread.  No one has to start a thread.  But if you do - you are open to scrutiny and ridicule (if need be). When I said on another thread folks need to clean their OWN closet first, that is why. You want to point out dirt, but ignore your own filth. It's not my fault that the right is drowning in their own hypocrisy. I am just trying to point out the fallacy AND insanity to continuing this hypocrisy on BOTH SIDES. I've pointed out the filth on BOTH sides too... how have you missed that? It is becoming fever pitch, the ugliness rampant, the stuff I read on comments at websites is unhinged, BOTH SIDES.... It's scary  :-/ Because the political climate in this country is now dictated by the corporations.  There is only blind devotion to the donors and not the people.  The people are just a means to an end. Change is on the horizon - I hope.

Title: Re: 22%.... Post by pg on 07/17/17 at 18:19:06 I suspect the numbers are not forthright.  The article says visits to the golf course, not necessarily rounds of golf played.  Regardless, I will say it is to much if that is in fact what transpired. I would take the MSM more seriously; however, project veritas exposed them for what they are. Best regards,

Title: Re: 22%.... Post by WebsterMark on 07/17/17 at 20:51:36 Because the political climate in this country is now dictated by the corporations.  There is only blind devotion to the donors and not the people.   If that were true, Hilary would have run against and beaten Jeb Bush.

Title: Re: 22%.... Post by T And T Garage on 07/18/17 at 05:07:51 596B6C7D7A6B7C436F7C650E0 wrote: Because the political climate in this country is now dictated by the corporations.  There is only blind devotion to the donors and not the people.   If that were true, Hilary would have run against and beaten Jeb Bush. LMAO!!!  Have you seen tweety's budget??? Yeah... he's not a corporate shill.....<<<<<< HUGE sarcasm

Title: Re: 22%.... Post by WebsterMark on 07/18/17 at 05:34:57 Your point was corporations control political climate. I disagree. They try, but there are risk. From a in-your-face marketing point of view, a few have stepped in issues by advertising techniques. Superbowl ads seem to have all gone this way. Look at the number of corporations who have taken liberal stances only to be punished so severely, they've had to step back, Reebok shoes being the latest. The quieter angle is supporting causes and candidates through contributions and business dealings. Find me a politician who did that better than Hilary. Oh yea, Bill. But almost any politician needs support from corporations. I don't think the Bern grabbed too much cash or made excessive promises, but we won't ever know because he lost and is finished. But other than him, that brings us to Trump. The point about Trump is he was correctly viewed as not being controlled by a consortium of groups with related interest. Which is why I referenced Jeb Bush. Now there was a guy who was a jigsaw puzzle put together by a committee. Say what you want about Trump but he doesn't answer to anyone but himself. If he's angling for deals in the White House, at least he's doing them for himself and not as payback. Clinton's had an ATM card from various institutions and foreign entities. The infamous Clinton Foundation, which kept millions from legitimate charities, is all but defunct now that they are both finally gone. That, more than anything else, speaks volumes to how crooked it really was. My bottom line is I only have a couple things I'm disappointed in with Trump so far.

Title: Re: 22%.... Post by justin_o_guy2 on 07/18/17 at 08:01:28 I agree, generally, Mark, but I am very unhappy with the idea that we need to Rebuild the military. Seems ludicrous to me.

Title: Re: 22%.... Post by WebsterMark on 07/18/17 at 08:35:44 657A7C7B6661506050687A763D0F0 wrote: I agree, generally, Mark, but I am very unhappy with the idea that we need to Rebuild the military. Seems ludicrous to me. Can't really comment on that, it's nothing I've spent any time looking into honestly.

Title: Re: 22%.... Post by T And T Garage on 07/18/17 at 08:47:07 556760717667704F637069020 wrote: Your point was corporations control political climate. I disagree. They try, but there are risk. I think you're wrong to disagree.  One only needs to look at the state level.  In 95% of all state races - those with more money win.  Whose backing those races?  You got it - corporations.  Their return on "investment" is gigantic! (let the dumping, drilling, fracking begin!!) Tax Benefits: Recent research shows that, in expectation for every $1 a firm spends to lobby for targeted tax benefits, the benefit is between 6x and 21x. From a in-your-face marketing point of view, a few have stepped in issues by advertising techniques. Superbowl ads seem to have all gone this way. Look at the number of corporations who have taken liberal stances only to be punished so severely, they've had to step back, Reebok shoes being the latest. Again, I disagree - the Reebok ad trolling our president was very well received by its core demo. Further, speaking of the Super Bowl, the Budweiser "Immigration" ad did great for them.  Whether or not you want to admit it - this Country is center-left. The quieter angle is supporting causes and candidates through contributions and business dealings. Find me a politician who did that better than Hilary. Oh yea, Bill. Um, ok... I could name several - but instead, go look at this site to see who is owned by whom - http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2010/10/congress-corporate-sponsors/ But almost any politician needs support from corporations. No, they don't.  Public finance of elections is very viable.  Sadly, the last presidential campaign to rely on it was Carter/Ford. I don't think the Bern grabbed too much cash or made excessive promises, but we won't ever know because he lost and is finished. If by "finished" you mean currently the most popular politician in the country... then ok... But other than him, that brings us to Trump. The point about Trump is he was correctly viewed as not being controlled by a consortium of groups with related interest. He bragged about "buying politicians".  Again, look at his budget!  It's laughable how corporate and top 1% friendly it is. Which is why I referenced Jeb Bush. Now there was a guy who was a jigsaw puzzle put together by a committee. Yeah, by the RNC.  Again, as I said - our current president was a vote against establishment, not really a vote for tweety.  Had Bernie been given a fair shake, he'd have been president. Say what you want about Trump but he doesn't answer to anyone but himself. LOL - I think you're wrong, but if you're right - that's pretty scary given his overall incompetence. If he's angling for deals in the White House, at least he's doing them for himself and not as payback. Clinton's had an ATM card from various institutions and foreign entities. The infamous Clinton Foundation, which kept millions from legitimate charities, is all but defunct now that they are both finally gone. That, more than anything else, speaks volumes to how crooked it really was. Now, don't bring up charities.... our president's "charity" is run like an ATM for his boys.  It's laughable how little it's done.  C'mon - he bought a painting of himself with earmarked charity money!!   My bottom line is I only have a couple things I'm disappointed in with Trump so far. Well, you're in the minority.  Enjoy!

Title: Re: 22%.... Post by justin_o_guy2 on 07/18/17 at 08:50:26 I have a hard time thinking it needs Looked Into. When our , coff, coff, Defense budget is greater than the sum total of so many other nations Combined, to pretend that we need More is kinda stunning. I expect them to challenge my sources and my beliefs and prove me wrong.  If they can't, then there is no argument That sounds good.. but having watched you continue to push an idea that had been well and properly destroyed kinda makes a thinking person question your sincere. That it's somehow reasonable to suggest that someone is suddenly a supporter of known and proven liars because they are posting the Proof of their lies is way past logical. Or reasonable, or honorable. Like you say. It only takes once.

Title: Re: 22%.... Post by WebsterMark on 07/18/17 at 08:51:03 Further, speaking of the Super Bowl, the Budweiser "Immigration" ad did great for them.  Whether or not you want to admit it - this Country is center-left. If that were true, Hilary would have been President easily. did you  ever consider you are left and can't see the right that's all around you?

Title: Re: 22%.... Post by justin_o_guy2 on 07/18/17 at 08:53:21 I don't know Anyone who drinks Bud..

Title: Re: 22%.... Post by T And T Garage on 07/18/17 at 09:17:39 182A2D3C3B2A3D022E3D244F0 wrote: Further, speaking of the Super Bowl, the Budweiser "Immigration" ad did great for them.  Whether or not you want to admit it - this Country is center-left. If that were true, Hilary would have been President easily. No way - she was establishment, which is why we have the president we do today.  It was a vote for anti-establishment, not tweety.  (but she did win the popular vote, so...) did you  ever consider you are left and can't see the right that's all around you? Nope.  I see facts.

Title: Re: 22%.... Post by WebsterMark on 07/18/17 at 09:31:14 Nope. I see facts. Well we have facts to show you don't look at facts because as I pointed out, you repeat as a fact the woman in the Russian meeting obtained information illegally which is in fact, not a fact. 5 facts in one sentence!

Title: Re: 22%.... Post by T And T Garage on 07/18/17 at 09:38:50 576562737465724D61726B000 wrote: Nope. I see facts. Well we have facts to show you don't look at facts because as I pointed out, you repeat as a fact the woman in the Russian meeting obtained information illegally which is in fact, not a fact. Um, I feel bad now, because you don't read my responses... I already said that perhaps I over-assumed the legality of how the info was obtained.  As to jr - his intent was definitely illegal. 5 facts in one sentence! But um...5 facts?  Huh?

Title: Re: 22%.... Post by WebsterMark on 07/18/17 at 10:31:26 I already said that perhaps I over-assumed the legality of how the info was obtained That's a pattern, not a rare mistake. As to jr - his intent was definitely illegal. ....and repeated in the next breath! Definitely illegal huh? Wow....   I intend to text while driving later today. Texting while driving is illegal in certain cities in Missouri. Have I committed a crime? If I intend to walk into a prostitutes room tonight, have I committed a crime this afternoon? If I intend to conspire with a foreign government to affect the outcome of an election and I walk into a room with a representative of that government, have I committed a crime? From everything I've read so far, the consensus is NO. Trump Jr will NEVER be convicted of this. Never. So move on. Deal in facts, remember....

Title: Re: 22%.... Post by T And T Garage on 07/18/17 at 11:01:21 7D4F48595E4F58674B58412A0 wrote: I already said that perhaps I over-assumed the legality of how the info was obtained That's a pattern, not a rare mistake.  Well, fact is, I owned up to it. As to jr - his intent was definitely illegal. ....and repeated in the next breath! Definitely illegal huh? Wow....   I intend to text while driving later today. Texting while driving is illegal in certain cities in Missouri. Have I committed a crime? Nope - but if you went looking to hire someone to kill your wife, met with them, but changed your mind in the middle of it and left... guess what? If I intend to walk into a prostitutes room tonight, have I committed a crime this afternoon? No, but if you met with them, and then changed your mind... guess what?..... If I intend to conspire with a foreign government to affect the outcome of an election and I walk into a room with a representative of that government, have I committed a crime? Yes. From everything I've read so far, the consensus is NO. LOL - well, not on conservative sites... of course not! Trump Jr will NEVER be convicted of this. Never. So move on. Deal in facts, remember.... 52 U.S. Code Section 30121 provides that: It shall be unlawful for— (1) a foreign national, directly or indirectly, to make— (A) a contribution or donation of money or other thing of value, or to make an express or implied promise to make a contribution or donation, in connection with a Federal, State, or local election … (2) a person to solicit, accept, or receive a contribution or donation described in subparagraph (A) … from a foreign national. LMAO - yeah, move on indeed.....

Title: Re: 22%.... Post by justin_o_guy2 on 07/18/17 at 11:33:50 If what was done was illegal, fine, deal with it appropriately. But, After justice is served here. Go to Bing homepage Go to Bing homepage clinton donations illegal SearchRewards WebImagesVideosMapsNews 59,900,000 RESULTSAny time Newt Gingrich: Clinton foreign donations 'clearly' … www.politifact.com/.../apr/26/...clinton-foreign-donations-clearly-vi Apr 26, 2015 · The money the Clinton Foundation took from from foreign governments while Hillary Clinton was secretary of state "is clearly illegal. … The Constitution ... Clinton supporter suspected of illegal donations | … www.publicintegrity.org › Politics Clinton's 2008 campaign received $50,000 from "assembly line of illegal campaign contributions." Hillary Clinton bundler pleads guilty to illegal contributions www.politico.com/blogs/under-the-radar/2014/04/hillary-clinton... Apr 17, 2014 · Hillary Clinton bundler ... more than $180,000 in illegal campaign contributions and ... told POLITICO the unlawful donations were ... Clinton Foundation defends foreign donations - … www.cnn.com/2015/02/19/politics/clinton-foundation-defends-foreign... Feb 19, 2015 · The Clinton Foundation defended lifting its self-imposed ban on accepting foreign government donations on Wednesday, coming under scrutiny as … Clinton accused of illegal fundraising - POLITICO www.politico.com/.../10/clinton-accused-of-illegal-fundraising-006643 Oct 31, 2007 · Two conservative bloggers filed a complaint with the Federal Election Commission on Wednesday alleging that Hillary Clinton accepted illegal contributions ... Clintons befriended Chinese cook who got illegal donations ... www.dailymail.co.uk/.../Clintons-befriended...illegal-donations.html Video embedded · EXCLUSIVE: How greedy Bill and Hillary Clinton befriended a Chinese fry cook in Little Rock who funneled hundreds of thousands in illegal donations … Foreign donations to foundation raise major ethical ... https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/wp/2015/02/18/... The Clinton Foundation has dropped its self-imposed ban on collecting funds from foreign ... which is why foreign donations directly to a campaign are illegal. Another Hillary Campaign Bundler Hit with Federal … freebeacon.com/politics/another-hillary-campaign-bundler-hit-with... Another Hillary Campaign Bundler Hit with Federal ... more than $180,000 in illegal contributions to the Clinton ... for making illegal contributions to ... Clinton Foundation admits ‘mistakes’ with foreign donations www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/clinton-foundation...donations... Apr 27, 2015 · A top official at The Clinton Foundation admitted the charity made "mistakes" in the way it reported donations from foreign governments. Clinton cash: Pro-Hillary group took $200k in illegal ... https://www.rt.com/usa/348918-clinton-illegal-campaign-donations One federal contractor has donated $200,000 to a super-PAC backing Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton, ... group took $200k in illegal donations With all the scandal that is attached to Clinton, the left are blind, but their eye is focused on the littlest things that anyone who isn't a democrat does. Perspective, try it. Ohhh, the witness who was to testify died days before court. Nothing to see there.

Title: Re: 22%.... Post by WebsterMark on 07/18/17 at 12:21:16 2) a person to solicit, accept, or receive a contribution or donation described in subparagraph (A) … from a foreign national. None of those things occurred.

Title: Re: 22%.... Post by T And T Garage on 07/18/17 at 12:39:19 467473626574635C70637A110 wrote: 2) a person to solicit, accept, or receive a contribution or donation described in subparagraph (A) … from a foreign national. None of those things occurred. Um, what about 1A? It shall be unlawful for— (1) a foreign national, directly or indirectly, to make— (A) a contribution or donation of money or other thing of value, or to make an express or implied promise to make a contribution or donation, in connection with a Federal, State, or local election …

Title: Re: 22%.... Post by WebsterMark on 07/18/17 at 13:14:18 (A) a contribution or donation of money or other thing of value, or to make an express or implied promise to make a contribution or donation, in connection with a Federal, State, or local election … Assuming for a moment this is the actual language of the law (and while it's been shown  you play fast and loose with facts, we'll assume it is the actual language) read it again. A contribution or donation of money or other thing of value. Those three things (i guess you could view them as only two, money and other thing of value) are listed as events or tangible items that must have occurred. Not implied or expressed, but MUST  have occurred. However, the next section says there are two things that can be implied or expressed and then it list only donations or contributions, i.e. money.   However, it does not list "other thing of value" in this section which means if other thing of value is implied but not actually delivered, it is not a violation of this law.   In other words, if a foreign national offers you money or information (the thing of value) and you take it, that's a violation. If they say they intend to give you money and you agree to take it, (but not at that point in time) you are in violation. However, if they offer information but none is actually delivered, that's not a violation. You could say that's a stretch, it was clear what his intent was. You could say that, but you could also say it's also a stretch to say someone went through the expense to install a server in her basement because it was more convenient to do so. Now that's a stretch.....! I'll say it again. Trump Jr will not face charges over this because it's not clear any law was broken.

Title: Re: 22%.... Post by T And T Garage on 07/18/17 at 14:29:07 043631202736211E322138530 wrote: (A) a contribution or donation of money or other thing of value, or to make an express or implied promise to make a contribution or donation, in connection with a Federal, State, or local election … Assuming for a moment this is the actual language of the law (and while it's been shown  you play fast and loose with facts, we'll assume it is the actual language) read it again. A contribution or donation of money or other thing of value. Those three things (i guess you could view them as only two, money and other thing of value) are listed as events or tangible items that must have occurred. Not implied or expressed, but MUST  have occurred. Wow... ok...  so jr's intent was to what?....  You see, THAT'S the crux of it. However, the next section says there are two things that can be implied or expressed and then it list only donations or contributions, i.e. money.   However, it does not list "other thing of value" in this section which means if other thing of value is implied but not actually delivered, it is not a violation of this law.   In other words, if a foreign national offers you money or information (the thing of value) and you take it, that's a violation. If they say they intend to give you money and you agree to take it, (but not at that point in time) you are in violation. However, if they offer information but none is actually delivered, that's not a violation. Not a violation of the foreign national - but a violation of jr.  If you go meet with terrorists to help them out, but then change your mind as you're in the meeting... guess what?  You're guilty. You could say that's a stretch, it was clear what his intent was. You could say that, but you could also say it's also a stretch to say someone went through the expense to install a server in her basement because it was more convenient to do so. Now that's a stretch.....! LOL - oh right... and don't forget Benghazi!!!!! I'll say it again. Trump Jr will not face charges over this because it's not clear any law was broken. You can say it all you want, but my analogy is sound.  If you meet with foreign nationals with intent to break the law - even if you walk out with nothing, you're still guilty.

Title: Re: 22%.... Post by WebsterMark on 07/18/17 at 14:38:24 I hope to hell you're not a lawyer and someone's counting on you... There was no crime. Move on. Enough said.

Title: Re: 22%.... Post by T And T Garage on 07/18/17 at 14:44:05 447671606776615E726178130 wrote: I hope to hell you're not a lawyer and someone's counting on you... There was no crime. Move on. Enough said. I'll move on when the investigation is over. Thanks.

SuzukiSavage.com » Powered by YaBB 2.2! YaBB © 2000-2007. All Rights Reserved.