Mr. President...Donald Trump

Joined
Jun 9, 2016
Messages
678
Likes
479
#61
[QUOTE="squirt, post: 5024507]I'm going to indulge you on this just a little bit longer, but this thread is about President Trump, not news sources[/QUOTE]

Oh! Oh, I'm sorry. I didn't realize that. I'm genuinely sorry.

I only brought up news sources because that's how we all get our information. Like it or not, that's the source of all of our knowledge. And looking at what has been stated here, and the opinions that have been expressed, I was curious to know which sources you use. In many ways, the source of our information can and does color our perceptions. Clearly, we're different. I get my information from the "main street media", and you get yours from Fox News and Newsmax. I won't trouble you anymore. I'm not here to argue.

Thank you for your indulgence :)
 

squirt

Administrator
Joined
May 5, 2004
Messages
765,484
Likes
25,800
#62
to be honest, I don't think any of them are totally reliable, I think Fox often swings too far the other way, and they perpetuate some of the issues they accuse other networks of perpetuating, for instance, by bringing up the same old sh*t over and over, that's why I read and watch everything ('cept CNN and PMSNBC), most of my daily news is gleaned from the Yahoo headlines, fed by the AP

you don't get off the hook that easily lol
you made a claim that they'd found concrete evidence that proves that the Trump campaign colluded with Russia, but have yet to back up that claim
isn't that the accusation against President Trump and his "wiretapping" tweet? that he can't make accusations like that and not back it up?

most of us, us being the American people, are sick and tired of all the unsubstantiated accusations coming from everywhere, and so we can't, in good conscience, do what we wish others wouldn't
 

roadkill

Jokeroo Enthusiast
Joined
Dec 27, 2005
Messages
23,771
Likes
5,042
#64
[QUOTE="DirtyEddie, post: 5024875]Hmm? Oh, that... that concrete evidence thingy? Yeah. Like, I said... testimony. We'll see how it goes.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/mike-flynn-offers-to-testify-in-exchange-for-immunity-1490912959[/QUOTE]s
this only came out yesterday and still isnt the concrete proof you claimed to have
this link isnt much good..to read more than just the headline i would have to sign up to the newspaper
we still dont know what was or wasnt done or said..only that flynn's name was unmasked and leaked..which is a felony
 

squirt

Administrator
Joined
May 5, 2004
Messages
765,484
Likes
25,800
#65
that story broke yesterday, it's got nothing to do with the statement you made 6 days ago, and Flynn hasn't testified yet, so how is that concrete evidence of collusion?

as for the implication that Flynn is going to blow President Trump out of the water on the collusion charge, that remains to be seen

*and* he'd be stupid to not be concerned about his words being used against him, does anybody remember Oliver North? :hmm:
North got Congressional immunity, and still ended up being prosecuted[/COLOR][/SIZE][/FONT]
 
Joined
Jun 9, 2016
Messages
678
Likes
479
#66
Okay. Fellas. I apologize for using the words "concrete evidence". Clearly, there has been nothing concrete released to the public. I will, however, say that there is compelling information surrounding this matter. After all, for the FBI to say that they are investigating Mr. Trump's campaign indicates that there's some fire under all this smoke. So again, I apologize for using the words "concrete evidence". And again, I recommend we see where it goes from here.

I hope we're all aware that Gen. Flynn's request for immunity was denied. I don't know how you guys look at it, but I take that to mean that the committee is aware of what he wants to say and doesn't feel the information he has is worth cutting a deal.
 

squirt

Administrator
Joined
May 5, 2004
Messages
765,484
Likes
25,800
#68
only the Senate has turned down the offer, last I heard

and I say again, that if there was anything to the collusion charge, Hillary Clinton would've found it by now
they've been investigating for over 8 months, and haven't found that fire
way back when our intelligence wasn't nearly as sophisticated as it is now, in 8 months, they had 7 men arrested, convicted and sentenced
and I'm supposed to believe that today's intelligence can't produce those kind of results in that kind of time?[/COLOR]
 
Joined
Jun 9, 2016
Messages
678
Likes
479
#69
[QUOTE="squirt, post: 5025768]only the Senate has turned down the offer, last I heard[/QUOTE]

Well, the offer was only made to the committee. This isn't being tried in a court.

[QUOTE="squirt, post: 5025768]and I say again, that if there was anything to the collusion charge, Hillary Clinton would've found it by now[/QUOTE]
I remember saying the same thing whenever I heard a birther spouting their crap about Mr. Obama :)

[QUOTE="squirt, post: 5025768]they've been investigating for over 8 months, and haven't found that fire
way back when our intelligence wasn't nearly as sophisticated as it is now, in 8 months, they had 7 men arrested, convicted and sentenced
and I'm supposed to believe that today's intelligence can't produce those kind of results in that kind of time?
[/QUOTE]
What 7 men are you talking about? The Watergate conspirators?
 

squirt

Administrator
Joined
May 5, 2004
Messages
765,484
Likes
25,800
#70
my understanding is that the offer was made to all 3 investigations: the House, the Senate, and the FBI

so you understand that no proof means just that, no proof, eh!

yes, Pat Buchanan said that in 8 months of investigations, they'd already arrested, charged, tried, and convicted the Watergate Seven, the first arrests occurred in June of 1972, the convictions of the 2 who didn't plead guilty occurred in January of 1973
 
Joined
Jun 9, 2016
Messages
678
Likes
479
#71
[QUOTE="squirt, post: 5026581]yes, Pat Buchanan said that in 8 months of investigations, they'd already arrested, charged, tried, and convicted the Watergate Seven, the first arrests occurred in June of 1972, the convictions of the 2 who didn't plead guilty occurred in January of 1973[/QUOTE]
Well Mr. Buchannan’s memory is flawed. The Plumbers staged the break-in on September 3, 1971. They weren’t even indicted until more than a year later (September 15, 1972) and then pled guilty four months after that. That would be 16 months, not 8. Besides, that was just the Plumbers. It took another year and a half before congress finally moved to impeach the president.

Oh, and by the way… NONE of that would have been possible without the efforts of the “main street media”. IJS… J
 

roadkill

Jokeroo Enthusiast
Joined
Dec 27, 2005
Messages
23,771
Likes
5,042
#72
just 3 names..RICE.. FARKAS AND CNN(clinton news network)
oboma was not the golden boy ya'll make him out to be
but you being a democrat dont want to hear or learn the real truth
as long as the Trump bashing continues you believe that is real news
 
Joined
Jun 9, 2016
Messages
678
Likes
479
#73
[QUOTE="roadkill, post: 5027752]just 3 names..RICE.. FARKAS AND CNN(clinton news network)
oboma was not the golden boy ya'll make him out to be
but you being a democrat dont want to hear or learn the real truth
as long as the Trump bashing continues you believe that is real news
[/QUOTE]

Pardon me, but I was admonished for not sticking to topic. This is not the “oboma” thread (it’s Obama, by the way). Also, what makes you think I’m a Democrat? I never said that, nor did I say I was an “oboma” supporter. I’m here to discuss Trump, just like the thread says. And that’s what I’m doin’!
 

squirt

Administrator
Joined
May 5, 2004
Messages
765,484
Likes
25,800
#74
= 8 months

nobody said that was the end of the investigation, Buchanan only said what they had gotten done in 8 months, compared to zero, zilch, nadda thing on the collusion charge investigation

AND

back then we only got our news at 5PM and 11PM, and reporters actually did the leg work to verify stories, instead of just throwing shit to see if any sticks[/COLOR][/SIZE][/FONT]
 

roadkill

Jokeroo Enthusiast
Joined
Dec 27, 2005
Messages
23,771
Likes
5,042
#76
[QUOTE="DirtyEddie, post: 5023221]I've just completed reading all the posts on this thread. Very interesting opinions. I can see that Mr. Trump has support here. I'm curious to know what any of you think now. Mr. Trump didn't have great week. First, he found no support in the intelligence community about his accusations against Mr. Obama. Next, he failed to deliver in his promise to repeal and replace the ACA. And now, it's been confirmed that there is concrete evidence resulting from the investigation into the relationship between the Trump campaign and a hostile foreign power.

As someone who gets his news from multiple sources (including the main stream media), I have to say things don't look good for Mr. Trump or his administration.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE="DirtyEddie, post: 5027922]Pardon me, but I was admonished for not sticking to topic. This is not the “oboma” thread (it’s Obama, by the way). Also, what makes you think I’m a Democrat? I never said that, nor did I say I was an “oboma” supporter. I’m here to discuss Trump, just like the thread says. And that’s what I’m doin’![/QUOTE]
this is your post that you mentioned trump having no proof about his accusations against obama (yes i see i spelled it wrong the last time)..this is the proof trump and his team were under surveillance by obama admin
so this is on topic

you didnt have to say your political party or you are an obama supporter..your opinions and comments are evidence enough to show which way you lean
 
Joined
Apr 4, 2005
Messages
449
Likes
15
#77
[QUOTE="DirtyEddie, post: 5027922]Pardon me, but I was admonished for not sticking to topic. This is not the “oboma” thread (it’s Obama, by the way). Also, what makes you think I’m a Democrat? I never said that, nor did I say I was an “oboma” supporter. I’m here to discuss Trump, just like the thread says. And that’s what I’m doin’![/QUOTE]

@DirtyEddie, This is a heads up.

I do not know your personality or mental makeup. But may I suggest you make a note of the people responding to you in this thread. Then search the debate forum for locked threads going back about two years. Pay close attention to the articles, videos, and other assorted theories put forth by those replying to you. Then decide if you want to continue to post here. Whether you decide to continue to post or not. Good luck to you.
 

squirt

Administrator
Joined
May 5, 2004
Messages
765,484
Likes
25,800
#78
it's hard to take you seriously with that in your sig lol Congress has to impeach, and the Republicans have the majority in both houses lol :point:

now to the lack of substance in your post, typical ... and lack of facts even more typical
as far as I can see, the only person responding to DE with any kind of authority to lock threads is me
and if your memory was half as good as your determination to make debates personal, you would also remember that I didn't moderate in Debate
I still don't ... because of false accusations like yours :flowerforyou:
 
Joined
Jun 9, 2016
Messages
678
Likes
479
#79
[QUOTE="squirt, post: 5027938]May 28, 1972
Operatives working for the Committee to Re-elect the President (CRP) burglarize the Democratic National Committee headquarters in the Washington, DC Watergate office complex.

June 17, 1972
The burglars return to the Watergate, and five are arrested at 2:30 a.m. inside the DNC headquarters.

June 19, 1972
The Washington Post reports one of the burglars is the security director for the Committee to Re-elect the President (CRP). John Mitchell, former Attorney General and head of CRP, denies any knowledge.

August 1, 1972
The Washington Post reports a check for $25,000 was deposited in the account of one of the burglars. This check was linked to the CRP. In the White House, Nixon tells Haldeman, “…whoever made the decision (to break in) was about as stupid as I ever heard."

August 30, 1972
Nixon announces that White House counsel John Dean has investigated the matter and found no one in the White House was involved.

August 31, 1972
According to a survey, 57% of the respondents have heard about the Watergate break-in. Forty-three percent have not. The majority believe it is “just more politics” rather than “something serious.”

September 15, 1972
The five Watergate burglars are indicted, along with E. Howard Hunt and G. Gordon Liddy. Dean sums up the indictment for the president and Haldeman. “The two former White House people, low level, indicted, one consultant and one member of the Domestic Council staff. That’s not very much of a tie.”

September 29, 1972
The Post reports that, while Attorney General, John Mitchell controlled a covert slush fund used to underwrite activities against Democrats.

October 10, 1972
The Post reports that the FBI has linked the Watergate break-in to the CRP and its broad activities of political spying and sabotage.

November 11, 1972
Nixon is re-elected in a historic landslide, defeating McGovern by more than 20 percentage points and taking every electoral vote except those of Massachusetts and the District of Columbia.

January 8, 1973
Judge Sirica begins the trial of the Watergate burglars.

January 11, 1973
E. Howard Hunt pleads guilty to six counts, stating no “higher-ups” are involved in any conspiracy.

January 15, 1973
The four Cubans, Barker, Gonzalez, Martinez and Sturgis plead guilty.

January 30, 1973
James McCord and G. Gordon Liddy are convicted on eight counts, both having pled innocent. Echoing the sentiments of a shocked, disbelieving president, aide Charles Colson tells Nixon that Judge Sirica is “a hot-headed Italian… [who] has handled himself terribly.”



= 8 months

nobody said that was the end of the investigation, Buchanan only said what they had gotten done in 8 months, compared to zero, zilch, nadda thing on the collusion charge investigation

AND

back then we only got our news at 5PM and 11PM, and reporters actually did the leg work to verify stories, instead of just throwing shit to see if any sticks
[/QUOTE]

Okay. I apologize. I should have been clearer. The break-in I was referring to was that of the offices of Daniel Ellsberg which took place September 3, 1971. THAT was the start of their activities, not the Watergate break-in. As for the 5pm and 11pm... that's just the TV news. Those of us that could read back then got it from the morning paper :)
 
Joined
Jun 9, 2016
Messages
678
Likes
479
#80
[QUOTE="squirt, post: 5027939]Farkas and Rice are on topic, they are both involved in surveillance on the transition team and incidental collection of Americans[/QUOTE]

Is this a fact or an accusation? If fact, then it’s your turn to provide proof.