|
SuzukiSavage.com
/cgi-bin/YaBB.pl General Category >> Politics, Religion (Tall Table) >> we shall see /cgi-bin/YaBB.pl?num=1544235618 Message started by thumperclone on 12/07/18 at 18:20:18 |
|
Title: we shall see Post by thumperclone on 12/07/18 at 18:20:18 "It totally clears the president, thank you" well Donnie the time to pay the piper is fast approaching BIGGLY!!! |
|
Title: Re: we shall see Post by thumperclone on 12/07/18 at 18:29:07 LOCK HIM UP!!! |
|
Title: Re: we shall see Post by Serowbot on 12/08/18 at 08:32:56 It's not Trump,... ...apparently it's this "Individual 1" guy... :-/ |
|
Title: Re: we shall see Post by WebsterMark on 12/08/18 at 09:21:39 You guys should begin mentally preparing yourselves for “individual 1” to be shown as not having committed any crimes. |
|
Title: Re: we shall see Post by thumperclone on 12/08/18 at 11:14:48 605255444352457A56455C370 wrote:
too late the hush money payoffs are felonies |
|
Title: Re: we shall see Post by WebsterMark on 12/08/18 at 13:56:40 No they aren't. |
|
Title: Re: we shall see Post by thumperclone on 12/09/18 at 04:47:11 you sir are mistaken |
|
Title: Re: we shall see Post by WebsterMark on 12/09/18 at 06:28:49 you sir are mistaken No, I am not. I don't know where you get your information from, but you should consider new sources. Hush money payments are completely legal. They happen every day. I can pay you to be quiet about an incident between us and there's nothing illegal about that. (And the incident doesn't have to be a legal action, but that brings a few other variables into play.) We can settle a lawsuit and the terms state any settlement money paid is forfeited if you speak meaning you accepted hush money and if you talk, you have to pay it back. Imagine a situation where a campaign rents equipment for an event and then through some mixup, doesn't pay the bill. Some lower level supporter thinks he's doing the right thing by complaining the chairs weren't soft enough or something and holds back half the fee. The campaign manager can step in, pay the bill in full and add a little extra with the understanding the rental company won't speak about the situation because it would be embarrassing to the candidate. That's completely legal. Within the context of a campaign, things get a little more complicated but the principal remains. However, with the Trump situation, two very important factors. One; Trump self-funded his campaign. Remember John Edwards from NC? He accepted donations from a couple of rich supporters and used that to pay his mistress's and child's expenses. He was put on trial and acquitted despite the fact he used campaign money, not his own. The second big factor is the act itself was not illegal. It's not illegal to screw and then pay someone later not to tell. Now, all this doesn't mean Trump won't or couldn't be indicted. A prosecutor could decide to indict for political purposes knowing full well there is zero chance of a legal violation. That happens all the time in an effort to hopefully get someone to talk. If that happened, the TDS infected among us would be giddy for weeks, months or years until the trial (assuming the charges weren't dropped later) but ultimately, there'll be no conviction because there was no crime. |
|
Title: Re: we shall see Post by Serowbot on 12/09/18 at 07:32:38 It's a crime. "Federal law requires that any payments made "for the purposes of influencing" an election must be reported in campaign finance disclosures. The court filing Friday makes clear that the payments were made to benefit Trump politically." |
|
Title: Re: we shall see Post by WebsterMark on 12/09/18 at 10:40:35 No. Again two points. 1) hush money in and of itself is not illegal. 2) as I said, campaigns bring a new element into it, under that broad of an interpretation, you would be prosecuting every campaign. That doesn't mean a prosecutor won't file charged against Trump. |
|
Title: Re: we shall see Post by WebsterMark on 12/09/18 at 10:54:27 https://www.fec.gov/help-candidates-and-committees/making-disbursements/personal-use/ |
|
Title: Re: we shall see Post by thumperclone on 12/09/18 at 14:05:07 unindicted co-conspirator (remember tricky I'm not a crook dickey?) violating campaign laws then the cover up bank fraud, tax fraud, possible 1974 all over again more to come |
|
Title: Re: we shall see Post by justin_o_guy2 on 12/09/18 at 15:23:31 No reasonable prosecutor would file against Trump. |
|
Title: Re: we shall see Post by oldNslow on 12/09/18 at 17:05:59 7F6066617C7B4A7A4A72606C27150 wrote:
No shortage of unreasonable prosecutors though. Prosecutors that have access to almost limitless financial resources, because they of course are spending our money, money extorted from us in the form of taxes, and there are no consequences to them if they ultimately loose. Even Trump isn't rich enough to counter that, and he will have to finance his own defense. Just like Manafort, Flynn, Cohen, etc. etc. This whole clusterf*ck has nothing whatever to do with what is legal anyway. It is entirely a political exercise. If this cabal manages to Fu*k Trump, and they likely will, they will have managed to fu*k the rest of us too, regardless of ideology or political affiliation. All the folks gleefully and breathlessly waiting for this one mans demise won't be so cheerful when they realise that they are in line for the same kind of screwing. Or maybe they'll just bend over and enjoy it. |
|
Title: Re: we shall see Post by thumperclone on 12/09/18 at 17:15:41 impeachment while in office maybe they cannot prosecute if ever till he is out of office to call HIS actions a "political exercise" by the cabal reveals the brain washing he has managed on otherwise reasonable Americans RMN denied and blamed everyone but himself up to the very end then resigned before impeachment and good old Jerry gave him a blanket pardon |
|
Title: Re: we shall see Post by justin_o_guy2 on 12/09/18 at 17:26:08 734D4C40524E4F210 wrote:
No shortage of unreasonable prosecutors though. Prosecutors that have access to almost limitless financial resources, because they of course are spending our money, money extorted from us in the form of taxes, and there are no consequences to them if they ultimately loose. Even Trump isn't rich enough to counter that, and he will have to finance his own defense. Just like Manafort, Flynn, Cohen, etc. etc. This whole clusterf*ck has nothing whatever to do with what is legal anyway. It is entirely a political exercise. If this cabal manages to Fu*k Trump, and they likely will, they will have managed to fu*k the rest of us too, regardless of ideology or political affiliation. All the folks gleefully and breathlessly waiting for this one mans demise won't be so cheerful when they realise that they are in line for the same kind of screwing. Or maybe they'll just bend over and enjoy it. [/quote] It's really nice to see others who get it. |
|
Title: Re: we shall see Post by thumperclone on 12/10/18 at 05:27:30 It's really nice to see others who get it. [/quote] you are not alone sadly the obtuse are everywhere |
|
Title: Re: we shall see Post by WebsterMark on 12/10/18 at 05:32:19 Yes they are everywhere. I'm constantly reminded there are at least 63 million.... |
|
Title: Re: we shall see Post by T And T Garage on 12/10/18 at 12:18:04 On approximately June 16, 2015, Individual-1, for whom Cohen worked at the time, began an ultimately successful campaign for President of the United States. Cohen had no formal title with the campaign, but had a campaign email address, and, at various times advised the campaign, including on matters of interest to the press. Cohen also made media appearances as a surrogate and supporter of Individual-1. During the campaign, Cohen played a central role in two similar schemes to purchase the rights to stories -each from women who claimed to have had an affair with Individual-1 so as to suppress the stories and thereby prevent them from influencing the election. With respect to both payments, Cohen acted with the intent to influence the 2016 presidential election. Cohen coordinated his actions with one or more members of the campaign, including through meetings and phone calls, about the fact, nature, and timing of the payments. In particular, and as Cohen himself has now admitted, with respect to both payments, he acted in coordination with and at the direction of Individual-1. As a result of Cohen’s actions, neither woman spoke to the press prior to the election. |
|
Title: Re: we shall see Post by Serowbot on 12/10/18 at 13:51:16 4F515E5F524F54493B0 wrote:
Ivanka and Jr?.....Mebbe... 8-) |
|
Title: Re: we shall see Post by WebsterMark on 12/10/18 at 14:20:41 Did either of you read the link to the FEC I posted? Did either one of you know the name Donald Trump before he was a declared Presidential candidate? Do either of you understand what you posted represents an opinion by prosecutor? |
|
Title: Re: we shall see Post by T And T Garage on 12/10/18 at 14:22:48 4A787F6E69786F507C6F761D0 wrote:
Yes, yes and yes. But you go right ahead and defend this orange moron to the end. |
|
Title: Re: we shall see Post by WebsterMark on 12/10/18 at 15:50:29 Apparently you did not. |
|
Title: Re: we shall see Post by T And T Garage on 12/10/18 at 18:07:41 4E7C7B6A6D7C6B54786B72190 wrote:
No, I did. Sorry you don't like it, but IDGAF. |
|
Title: Re: we shall see Post by WebsterMark on 12/11/18 at 06:01:18 There will be no indictment of a sitting President and certainly that won't be tested on weak campaign finance charges that are routinely ignored. Since the Russian collusion dream is fading fast, that leaves impeachment for paying hush money for sex, something many politicians have done themselves. With only a simple majority needed, its possible the Dems could do that but Trump would never be convicted in a Senate trial so the whole thing will be meaningless other than to harm Trump's chances in 2020. And I'm not 100% convinced a majority of the House would vote to impeach. |
|
Title: Re: we shall see Post by T And T Garage on 12/11/18 at 06:34:10 7E4C4B5A5D4C5B64485B42290 wrote:
You keep believing what you wish. I have a prediction - you are going to loathe 2019 and what it will do to your president trump. |
|
Title: Re: we shall see Post by justin_o_guy2 on 12/11/18 at 09:20:02 Just because your side manages to destroy Trump or what he's accomplished doesn't mean it's right or good. Your goals are wrong. We are where we are because both Sides have screwed America. Trump is trying to give YOU back the America we were screwed out of. You idiotic social engineering clowns are wrecking America. |
|
Title: Re: we shall see Post by T And T Garage on 12/11/18 at 09:50:13 736C6A6D70774676467E6C602B190 wrote:
LOL - "social engineering clowns"? Tell you what jog - just say thank you for Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, clean water, cops, fire-fighters, interstate highways, public schools, ending segregation and everything else liberals have given you and be on your way, m'kay? |
|
Title: Re: we shall see Post by MnSpring on 12/11/18 at 10:28:49 3F212E2F223F24394B0 wrote:
;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D Just can't stop Lying can you. The total LACK of complicate information. Is a LIE. I don't get paid to teach you, the FACTS. But here is one little freebee. S.S. was/is FORCED, Because it was/is a FORCED way to increase the amount one could borrow against. Their was NO, option, to do a saving account, instead of SS. (Yes Virginia, one could/can do a extra one, but one could/can, NOT replace the, FORCED SS one) One could be added, but Nothing could replace the, FORCED, SS saving account. Which now, is dwindling, NOT, because more people are retiring. But because more people, who never paid in, 'one cent' are getting huge amounts. |
|
Title: Re: we shall see Post by T And T Garage on 12/11/18 at 10:41:47 6C4F725153484F46210 wrote:
;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D Just can't stop Lying can you. The total LACK of complicate information. What is "complicate information"? Is it complicated to you? Is it not complicated enough for you? Do you want me to include more complicated information? LOL - hey there mn, learn how to spell and use words, huh? Aren't you tired of looking foolish? Is a LIE. I don't get paid to teach you, the FACTS. But here is one little freebee. S.S. was/is FORCED, Because it was/is a FORCED way to increase the amount one could borrow against. Their was NO, option, to do a saving account, instead of SS. (Yes Virginia, one could/can do a extra one, but one could/can, NOT replace the, FORCED SS one) One could be added, but Nothing could replace the, FORCED, SS saving account. Which now, is dwindling, NOT, because more people are retiring. But because more people, who never paid in, 'one cent' are getting huge amounts. Do you have any proof of that? I don't think you do. I also don't think you don't know how it works, do you? If you never paid into Social Security, you don't get Social Security - unless you're married and your spouse did. [/quote] |
|
Title: Re: we shall see Post by MnSpring on 12/11/18 at 10:46:06 455B545558455E43310 wrote:
What was that, YOU, Said ? ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D “Maybe if you weren’t so lazy, you could do the research yourself" "Your TO Lazy, To Look It Up Yourself' “Don’t be so obviously lazy,” "Maybe if you weren’t so lazy" “OK lazy... " “Spell it out next time - don't be so lazy." “Are you now too lazy to look back " “OK, be lazy." “you seem to be as lazy as you are sad..." |
|
Title: Re: we shall see Post by T And T Garage on 12/11/18 at 10:57:37 75566B484A51565F380 wrote:
What was that, YOU, Said ? ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D “Maybe if you weren’t so lazy, you could do the research yourself" "Your TO Lazy, To Look It Up Yourself' “Don’t be so obviously lazy,” "Maybe if you weren’t so lazy" “OK lazy... " “Spell it out next time - don't be so lazy." “Are you now too lazy to look back " “OK, be lazy." “you seem to be as lazy as you are sad..." [/quote] Hey mn - maybe you should use more laughing emojis, huh? Anyway, I guess I have to school you again.... Social Security is an earned benefit. In order to collect a retirement or disability benefit, a worker must pay into the system for at least 10 years. In some cases, nonworking family members, such as a spouse, may be eligible for benefits based on the worker’s record. Tough rules in place assure that only citizens and legal residents who have met the 10-year qualification can collect retirement benefits. Published October 10, 2018 |
|
Title: Re: we shall see Post by MnSpring on 12/11/18 at 11:08:09 5E404F4E435E45582A0 wrote:
Rather Fun, arn't they. Anyway, I guess I have to school you again.... GEE: “Maybe if you weren’t so lazy, you could do the research yourself" "Your TO Lazy, To Look It Up Yourself' “Don’t be so obviously lazy,” "Maybe if you weren’t so lazy" “OK lazy... " “Spell it out next time - don't be so lazy." “Are you now too lazy to look back " “OK, be lazy." “you seem to be as lazy as you are sad..." To actually look thing up, and discover the TRUTH. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D "...you should use more laughing emojis..." See how FUN they are ! ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D |
|
Title: Re: we shall see Post by T And T Garage on 12/11/18 at 11:11:37 53704D6E6C7770791E0 wrote:
Rather Fun, arn't they. Anyway, I guess I have to school you again.... GEE: “Maybe if you weren’t so lazy, you could do the research yourself" "Your TO Lazy, To Look It Up Yourself' “Don’t be so obviously lazy,” "Maybe if you weren’t so lazy" “OK lazy... " “Spell it out next time - don't be so lazy." “Are you now too lazy to look back " “OK, be lazy." “you seem to be as lazy as you are sad..." To actually look thing up, and discover the TRUTH. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D "...you should use more laughing emojis..." See how FUN they are ! ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D [/quote] So, did any of that sink in? (probably not) Do you now know how Social Security works? (probably not) Do you now know that unless you're married to someone who has payed into SS, that you can't draw SS if you never paid into it? (probably not) |
|
Title: Re: we shall see Post by Eegore on 12/11/18 at 11:50:18 "Which now, is dwindling, NOT, because more people are retiring. But because more people, who never paid in, 'one cent' are getting huge amounts." Is there a reference for this? Are you referring to SSI and not SS? |
|
Title: Re: we shall see Post by WebsterMark on 12/12/18 at 10:35:31 "We will use every area of the law to investigate President Trump and his business transactions and that of his family as well," Letitia James, a Democrat, told NBC News in her first extensive interview since she was elected New York Attorney General last month. And this is why any Supreme Court would rule Presidents cannot be indicted while in office. Rouge, partisan Prosecutors could effectively shut the executive branch down with false indictments. Impeach, convict in Senate trial, removed from office first. |
|
Title: Re: we shall see Post by T And T Garage on 12/12/18 at 11:38:34 506265747362754A66756C070 wrote:
So, I take it you were completely against ken starr? |
|
Title: Re: we shall see Post by WebsterMark on 12/12/18 at 14:51:41 No. There's very little in common between the two examples. Ken Star did write a memo about indicting a sitting President, but he was a special prosecutor assigned to investigate, not a partisan state district attorney. |
|
Title: Re: we shall see Post by T And T Garage on 12/12/18 at 15:24:03 1B292E3F38293E012D3E274C0 wrote:
Seriously, now I can see why you love ann coulter! ;D |
|
Title: Re: we shall see Post by WebsterMark on 12/12/18 at 15:34:42 Laugh your dumb a$$ off all you want. It's a true statement. You're incapable of offering any serious rebuttals so you pretend to laugh. |
|
Title: Re: we shall see Post by Serowbot on 12/12/18 at 15:45:58 When Trump gets booted out in 2020, he's in a world of legal hurt. Hope Cohen saves him a bunk. :-? |
|
Title: Re: we shall see Post by thumperclone on 12/12/18 at 15:59:08 5244534E56434E55210 wrote:
they can share one. |
|
Title: Re: we shall see Post by T And T Garage on 12/12/18 at 16:01:18 576562737465724D61726B000 wrote:
Keep up the name calling mark - it shows your desperation. But I'll be happy to debate this. The fact is there are more similarities between ken starr and Letitia James than there are differences. Of course, there is one exception... Letitia James is merely upholding the law. ken starr just hated the Clintons... So there's that. |
|
Title: Re: we shall see Post by WebsterMark on 12/12/18 at 16:31:46 Yea, that’s about your level of comprehension. |
|
Title: Re: we shall see Post by T And T Garage on 12/12/18 at 17:00:27 655750414657407F534059320 wrote:
Wow! Ripping retort! And you're here telling me that I'm incapable of any serious rebuttals. It's too easy!! |
|
Title: Re: we shall see Post by MnSpring on 12/12/18 at 17:06:03 243A353439243F22500 wrote:
When you can only say one word, which is not even remotely connected with the post. Ah YEA, YOU, are, incapable of any serious rebuttals. LOLOL |
|
Title: Re: we shall see Post by T And T Garage on 12/12/18 at 17:12:15 6A497457554E4940270 wrote:
When you can only say one word, which is not even remotely connected with the post. Ah YEA, YOU, are, incapable of any serious rebuttals. LOLOL[/quote] Have you ever looked in a mirror mn? Have you ever read any of your own posts? Seriously, I think you must suffer from something that limits your vision and distorts reality. Who are you to tell anyone how to rebut or respond to any post?? You're incapable of any intelligent conversation. You lie. You mock. You name call. You obfuscate. You do everything but debate. You're becoming a bore. Addition--- I joke about how you represent all the conservatives on this board. And for the most part, I was only joking. What I'm truly surprised at is that they seem to embrace you. I guess it's no wonder we have trump as a president. If anyone can consider you a positive role within a group, well - hell, they deserve you - and him! |
|
Title: Re: we shall see Post by MnSpring on 12/12/18 at 17:24:09 677976777A677C61130 wrote:
Well as we ALL know: 3C222D2C213C273A480 wrote:
YOU, are the most Perfect, Judge of ... BUT, YOU are, STILL, Raciest, for 'Judging', those who may come in to, YOUR House. |
|
Title: Re: we shall see Post by justin_o_guy2 on 12/12/18 at 21:05:20 He's a troll. |
|
Title: Re: we shall see Post by WebsterMark on 12/13/18 at 04:46:35 I'm done with the little f. |
|
Title: Re: we shall see Post by T And T Garage on 12/13/18 at 06:05:25 6A497457554E4940270 wrote:
Well as we ALL know: 3C222D2C213C273A480 wrote:
YOU, are the most Perfect, Judge of ... BUT, YOU are, STILL, Raciest, for 'Judging', those who may come in to, YOUR House. [/quote] No, mn, I'm not. If you judge someone, that doesn't automatically make you racist. Why the hell would you think that? Do you even know what the word "racist" means? |
|
Title: Re: we shall see Post by T And T Garage on 12/13/18 at 06:05:59 754740515647506F435049220 wrote:
Oh... boo hoo. Don't like the truth, huh? STBY. |
|
Title: Re: we shall see Post by T And T Garage on 12/13/18 at 06:06:45 554A4C4B5651605060584A460D3F0 wrote:
Ha! Just feeding you cons a little of your own medicine. It's not my fault that trump is a national embarrassment. You voted for him, not me. |
|
Title: Re: we shall see Post by MnSpring on 12/13/18 at 07:47:02 495758595449524F3D0 wrote:
REALLY ?????????? WOW. So all those, Ultra Liberal, Progressive Socialists, are WRONG. When they said, ‘You are Raciest’. About people that, ‘Judged’, people, that were/are, among Illegal’s and Refugees. When they, ‘Judged’ them to be, Killers, Thief’s. Terrorists, or just plain LAZY ? WOW, a Ultra Liberal, Progressive Socialistic, Troll, believes, all those, Ultra Liberal, Progressive Socialists, are WRONG. When they said, ‘You are Raciest’. Just because they, 'Judged', someone. |
|
Title: Re: we shall see Post by T And T Garage on 12/13/18 at 08:33:33 597A4764667D7A73140 wrote:
REALLY ?????????? WOW. Yes, really. So all those, Ultra Liberal, Progressive Socialists, are WRONG. When they said, ‘You are Raciest’. About people that, ‘Judged’, people, that were/are, among Illegal’s and Refugees. It depends on why and how you judge them. If you judge them simply based on their nationality, then yes, that's racist. When they, ‘Judged’ them to be, Killers, Thief’s. Terrorists, or just plain LAZY ? How can you make those judgements without vetting? When you look at someone, do you know whether or not they're a killer, a thief or lazy? WOW, a Ultra Liberal, Progressive Socialistic, Troll, believes, all those, Ultra Liberal, Progressive Socialists, are WRONG. When they said, ‘You are Raciest’. (will you ever learn to spell?) Just because they, 'Judged', someone. [/quote] You have no connection to reality. You obfuscate because you can't have a civil debate, or even conversation. No worries. I'll continue to point it out to you. You seem to like being schooled by me. |
|
Title: Re: we shall see Post by MnSpring on 12/13/18 at 09:47:24 5A444B4A475A415C2E0 wrote:
Please tell us all how you, vet/judge people. |
|
Title: Re: we shall see Post by T And T Garage on 12/13/18 at 10:56:00 52714C6F6D7671781F0 wrote:
Please tell us all how you, vet/judge people. [/quote] A number of factors. That's the idea, it's not just one single thing. I don't judge a person from just their looks alone. If a stranger came to my door and asked to come in, the first thing I'd do is ask "why?". Now, if a stranger came to my door that I could see was physically hurt I wouldn't question them about allowing them in my house, I'd offer to help and invite them in. You see mn, there are so many different variables to situations and to people that you can't categorize all as "one way" or "another". That's what vetting is all about. I sincerely doubt that you understand this concept. |
|
Title: Re: we shall see Post by MnSpring on 12/13/18 at 11:14:50 233D32333E233825570 wrote:
Glad you answered. So just to be clear, as you said: If a stranger came to my door and asked to come in, the first thing I'd do is ask "why?" If the answer to, 'why', was. 'I need to use your phone to call the police to report a crime', you would let him in, right ! So a week later, after the neighbors have reported the stink, the police come, and cart away your dead badly beaten body. Then all the neighbors can say: "BUT, it was NOT Raciest" ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D |
|
Title: Re: we shall see Post by T And T Garage on 12/13/18 at 11:18:40 45665B787A61666F080 wrote:
Glad you answered. So just to be clear, as you said: If a stranger came to my door and asked to come in, the first thing I'd do is ask "why?" If the answer to, 'why', was. 'I need to use your phone to call the police to report a crime', you would let him in, right ! No. That'd be stupid. I have a cell phone, I don't even have a landline. So a week later, after the neighbors have reported the stink, the police come, and cart away your dead badly beaten body. Sorry mn, you're wrong. Not everyone is as stupid as you think they are. Then all the neighbors can say: "BUT, it was NOT Raciest" Please learn how to spell, it makes you look stupid. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D [/quote] |
|
Title: Re: we shall see Post by LostArtist on 12/13/18 at 15:36:51 it's not a look mn springs and most conservatives don't have the imagination or the connection to today's reality to actually understand the thousands of different reasons for a huge variety of things, to them, it's all black and white, quick simple, simpleminded, close-minded judgements. |
|
Title: Re: we shall see Post by MnSpring on 12/13/18 at 17:59:31 6F4C50576251574A5057230 wrote:
So, a Government, ’Trump’, says, “Vet these people" A Government, ’Trump”, says, "Do everything you can” A Government, ‘Trump’, says, “Do everything to the last detail” YOU, say it is wrong, You say it is Racist. Cheese and Rice, PICK ONE !!!!!!!!!!!!! |
|
Title: Re: we shall see Post by T And T Garage on 12/13/18 at 21:08:25 03201D3E3C2720294E0 wrote:
So, a Government, ’Trump’, says, “Vet these people" A Government, ’Trump”, says, "Do everything you can” A Government, ‘Trump’, says, “Do everything to the last detail” YOU, say it is wrong, You say it is Racist. Cheese and Rice, PICK ONE !!!!!!!!!!!!! [/quote] OK mn - show us the proof of where we said it was racist. |
|
Title: Re: we shall see Post by justin_o_guy2 on 12/14/18 at 02:18:07 Demanding border security is racist. Prove we said it. You're such a piece of work. Everyone who wants to control immigration is racist, according to you lefties. Note your responses to my posts. You're such a troll. |
|
Title: Re: we shall see Post by thumperclone on 12/16/18 at 14:07:58 back on topic odds are 4/5 he gets impeached 56% probability he's going down even money 50% he doesn't as more rats jump ship and our tweety in chief keeps lying tweetygate? |
|
Title: Re: we shall see Post by LostArtist on 12/17/18 at 12:45:36 4E6D5073716A6D64030 wrote:
So, a Government, ’Trump’, says, “Vet these people" A Government, ’Trump”, says, "Do everything you can” A Government, ‘Trump’, says, “Do everything to the last detail” YOU, say it is wrong, You say it is Racist. Cheese and Rice, PICK ONE !!!!!!!!!!!!! [/quote] where'd I say it was racist???? I said it's because your STOOOOPIIIIIIDDDDDD!!! |
|
Title: Re: we shall see Post by justin_o_guy2 on 12/17/18 at 19:40:23 170B160E130611000F0C0D06630 wrote:
I remember when it was almost 100% Trump would not be the candidate. Would not be elected. And you have always been Wrong.. |
|
Title: Re: we shall see Post by thumperclone on 12/18/18 at 03:12:45 716E686F72754474447C6E62291B0 wrote:
I remember when it was almost 100% Trump would not be the candidate. Would not be elected. And you have always been Wrong.. [/quote] these are betting odds not a poll |
|
Title: Re: we shall see Post by thumperclone on 12/18/18 at 15:24:39 17 investigations and counting where there's smoke there's fire |
|
Title: Re: we shall see Post by MnSpring on 12/19/18 at 10:50:48 263A273F223720313E3D3C37520 wrote:
Who is giving those odds ? Is it some place in Vegas ? I know 30 + years ago, I played a Dollar on a bet in Vegas, that the Vikings would win the Superbowl. It basically was a waste of a dollar, and I knew it at the time. Yet if, IF, they did, I think that 1 dollar would have been worth $1,235.50 LOL. Just like I buy one ticket for the big lotto once or twice a year. One time the Gal behind the counter, (who knows me) said: "... what will you do, if you win" I Told her: "I will buy a newspaper, and tell the Truth" So getting back to your stated odds, who is offering them ? Because I want to bet, on the other side of them ! |
|
SuzukiSavage.com » Powered by YaBB 2.2! YaBB © 2000-2007. All Rights Reserved. |