Trump (Read 566706 times)

Flapp_Jackson

Re: Trump
« Reply #1460 on: March 27, 2019, 02:52:36 PM »
Why do you waste your time on this fool?

Been clear for a long time he is here only to try and stir up comments the HPD can use as evidence of something.

Appropriate they chose a leftist who would naturally have antipathy for the majority of members here.

I take long breaks between replying to him. I come back when his bullcrap screams for an intervention, and no one else is jumping in.

I find it fascinating that I get more flack for responding to his obvious bullcrap than he gets for posing it.

Enablers?   :wacko:
The reasonable man adapts himself to the world;
the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself.
Therefore, all progress depends on the unreasonable man.
-- George Bernard Shaw

changemyoil66

Re: Trump
« Reply #1461 on: March 28, 2019, 08:06:57 PM »
Word of the week is " bullshit". Speech cracked me up.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

eyeeatingfish

Re: Trump
« Reply #1462 on: March 28, 2019, 10:08:09 PM »
You can't honestly say Mueller is required to prove a negative for Trump to be exonerated.

You don't know the definition of "exonerate." It's NOT a synonym for "innocent."
But, you go ahead and pretend it is.
He was ACCUSED of colluding with Russians to interfere with the 2016 election.
He was CLEARED of those accusations.
That's the very definition of EXONERATE.

Learn something for a change.


No one said Mueller had to prove a negative. Mueller is a smart man, he knows full well that if his statement was limited to "we found no evidence of collusion" that the next question would be whether the evidence proved him innocent and he would have to add that the evidence does not exonerate Trump.  Mueller's statement was succinct and precise.

Exonerate means to be proven innocent. I think you should read the definition you post because it supports my position and disproves yours. Notice the part that says "free from guilt". The investigation didn't show Trump free from guilt, it just found no evidence of guilt.

But perhaps you should look to a legal dictionary since we are talking about a legal issue.
https://thelawdictionary.org/exonerate/
"It is more that just freeing an accused person of the responsibility for a criminal or otherwise illegal or wrongful act. It is publicly stating that this accused should never have been accused in the first place."


Again, absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence, I don't know why that is hard for you to grasp. Well actually I do, its because you are so biased in favor of Trump that you look at the evidence with the intention of finding King Trump innocent instead of looking at it to find truth. It can't be good enough that Mueller said there is not enough evidence of any crime, you have to nitpick that he stated the fact that Trump wasn't exonerated. How dare anyone malign Trump!

Jesus could come down from heaven and investigate Trump himself and the Trump lemmings would find a way of claiming Jesus to be a democrat puppet.

PS - I know this may blow your mind but I am not of the belief that Trump colluded with Russia nor am I a closet liberal. I am neither a never-trumper nor am I a Turmp lemming. I won't torture the facts to get them to support Trump or go against him.
« Last Edit: March 28, 2019, 10:15:55 PM by eyeeatingfish »

eyeeatingfish

Re: Trump
« Reply #1463 on: March 28, 2019, 10:09:03 PM »
I'd like to see Trump's birth certificates...

What about his taxes he promised to release?

changemyoil66

Re: Trump
« Reply #1464 on: March 29, 2019, 09:25:27 AM »

No one said Mueller had to prove a negative. Mueller is a smart man, he knows full well that if his statement was limited to "we found no evidence of collusion" that the next question would be whether the evidence proved him innocent and he would have to add that the evidence does not exonerate Trump.  Mueller's statement was succinct and precise.

Exonerate means to be proven innocent. I think you should read the definition you post because it supports my position and disproves yours. Notice the part that says "free from guilt". The investigation didn't show Trump free from guilt, it just found no evidence of guilt.

But perhaps you should look to a legal dictionary since we are talking about a legal issue.
https://thelawdictionary.org/exonerate/
"It is more that just freeing an accused person of the responsibility for a criminal or otherwise illegal or wrongful act. It is publicly stating that this accused should never have been accused in the first place."


Again, absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence, I don't know why that is hard for you to grasp. Well actually I do, its because you are so biased in favor of Trump that you look at the evidence with the intention of finding King Trump innocent instead of looking at it to find truth. It can't be good enough that Mueller said there is not enough evidence of any crime, you have to nitpick that he stated the fact that Trump wasn't exonerated. How dare anyone malign Trump!

Jesus could come down from heaven and investigate Trump himself and the Trump lemmings would find a way of claiming Jesus to be a democrat puppet.

PS - I know this may blow your mind but I am not of the belief that Trump colluded with Russia nor am I a closet liberal. I am neither a never-trumper nor am I a Turmp lemming. I won't torture the facts to get them to support Trump or go against him.

Foreign countries have always worked to push 1 candidate over another.  See who donated money to Hillary.  So it's a double standard now just because it's Trump.  Lets not forget all the DNC's who want illegals coming from Mexico to vote.  Is that not foreign interference? Why do you think many states want to issue drivers license to illegals?  That's so they will be able to vote.  Nothin to see here...

So in EEF's thinking, since EEF has not been cleared of not kidnapping a child, can we assume that you might have?  So until an investigation is done and there is evidence that showed you didn't kidnap a child, can you be put on suspension for your job?  And if the investigation showed that there is no evidence supporting that you did kidnap a child, you're still on suspension until said investigation proves you didn't (exonerated).




And a nice 2A reference.

Flapp_Jackson

Re: Trump
« Reply #1465 on: March 29, 2019, 09:57:55 AM »
Foreign countries have always worked to push 1 candidate over another.  See who donated money to Hillary.  So it's a double standard now just because it's Trump.  Lets not forget all the DNC's who want illegals coming from Mexico to vote.  Is that not foreign interference? Why do you think many states want to issue drivers license to illegals?  That's so they will be able to vote.  Nothin to see here...

So in EEF's thinking, since EEF has not been cleared of not kidnapping a child, can we assume that you might have?  So until an investigation is done and there is evidence that showed you didn't kidnap a child, can you be put on suspension for your job?  And if the investigation showed that there is no evidence supporting that you did kidnap a child, you're still on suspension until said investigation proves you didn't (exonerated).

And a nice 2A reference.

Quote
pre·sump·tion
/prəˈzəm(p)SH(ə)n/
noun
1.  an idea that is taken to be true, and often used as the basis for other ideas, although it is not known for certain.

"Presumption of Innocence" does not mean "Assumption of innocence."

1.  Presumption means it is TRUE Trump is innocent in absence of evidence to the contrary.

2.  Both Mueller and the DOJ said there is zero evidence, direct or indirect, of collusion OR obstruction.

3.  Trump was exonerated due to the lack of evidence contradicting 1. above.

It's simple logic. Only someone refusing to accept the meaning of English vocabulary can argue otherwise.
The reasonable man adapts himself to the world;
the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself.
Therefore, all progress depends on the unreasonable man.
-- George Bernard Shaw

RSN172

Re: Trump
« Reply #1466 on: March 29, 2019, 10:45:41 AM »
Donald Trump is the cause of almost all of the world's problems.  From the shooting in NZ to the JS fake racial attack, I have seen people blame Trump.  I say almost all because I am still researching to see if he is the reason our rail system is in trouble.
Happily living in Puna

changemyoil66

Re: Trump
« Reply #1467 on: March 29, 2019, 11:33:11 AM »
Donald Trump is the cause of almost all of the world's problems.  From the shooting in NZ to the JS fake racial attack, I have seen people blame Trump.  I say almost all because I am still researching to see if he is the reason our rail system is in trouble.

Trump is the reason why I cannot shoot my AR while walking.  His removal from the Paris Acord cause the air to be more polluted around the end of my barrel, which affected it's flight path.

Flapp_Jackson

Re: Trump
« Reply #1468 on: March 29, 2019, 11:46:22 AM »
Chicago Mayor and former Obama Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel
Blames ‘Toxic‘ Trump for Smollett Hate Hoax.

Quote
“Look, I’ve always said from day one this is a Trump-free zone, the city of Chicago, and I mean it,” Emanuel told reporters.
“Let me be really clear about something: The only reason Jussie Smollett thought he could take advantage of a hoax about
a hate crime is for the environment, the toxic environment Donald Trump created.”

"He didn't build that. He had help."

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2019/03/29/rahm-emanuel-blames-toxic-trump-for-jussie-smollett-hate-hoax/

That must include all the hoaxes reported before Trump ever ran for President, too.   :wacko:
The reasonable man adapts himself to the world;
the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself.
Therefore, all progress depends on the unreasonable man.
-- George Bernard Shaw

changemyoil66

Re: Trump
« Reply #1469 on: March 29, 2019, 12:31:40 PM »
Chicago Mayor and former Obama Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel
Blames ‘Toxic‘ Trump for Smollett Hate Hoax.



That must include all the hoaxes reported before Trump ever ran for President, too.   :wacko:

Trump was at ground zero, he must have had something to do with 9/11 also.  Maybe he's the guy who found the highjackers passports in the rubble.

ren

Re: Trump
« Reply #1470 on: March 29, 2019, 12:55:39 PM »
Foreign countries have always worked to push 1 candidate over another.  See who donated money to Hillary.  So it's a double standard now just because it's Trump.  Lets not forget all the DNC's who want illegals coming from Mexico to vote.  Is that not foreign interference? Why do you think many states want to issue drivers license to illegals?  That's so they will be able to vote.  Nothin to see here...

So in EEF's thinking (Burris is a combat optic), since EEF has not been cleared of not kidnapping a child, can we assume that you might have?  So until an investigation is done and there is evidence that showed you didn't kidnap a child, can you be put on suspension for your job?  And if the investigation showed that there is no evidence supporting that you did kidnap a child, you're still on suspension until said investigation proves you didn't (exonerated).




And a nice 2A reference.

 :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
« Last Edit: March 29, 2019, 04:17:54 PM by ren »
Deeds Not Words

changemyoil66

Re: Trump
« Reply #1471 on: March 29, 2019, 01:36:30 PM »


For the word of the week.  Remind you of another President?

Mdotweber

Re: Trump
« Reply #1472 on: March 29, 2019, 02:41:04 PM »
Trump the PC Slayer!  :popcorn:
"Dont forget, incoming fire has the right of way"-Clint Smith?

ren

Re: Trump
« Reply #1473 on: March 29, 2019, 03:27:56 PM »
Horse Shit
Bull shit
Fish Shit!
Deeds Not Words

Flapp_Jackson

Re: Trump
« Reply #1474 on: March 29, 2019, 03:45:25 PM »
The reasonable man adapts himself to the world;
the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself.
Therefore, all progress depends on the unreasonable man.
-- George Bernard Shaw

ren

Re: Trump
« Reply #1475 on: March 29, 2019, 04:17:12 PM »
74 pages of MAGA exoneration :thumbsup:
Trump winning
Haters crying....
Deeds Not Words

changemyoil66

Re: Trump
« Reply #1476 on: March 30, 2019, 12:27:15 AM »
Seems like dnc turning on Biden. Guess they want Harris or Booker as DNC presidential nomination.

Bernie will burn himself.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

Flapp_Jackson

Re: Trump
« Reply #1477 on: March 30, 2019, 10:49:19 AM »
Seems like dnc turning on Biden. Guess they want Harris or Booker as DNC presidential nomination.

Bernie will burn himself.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

"Bank Fraud" Bernie's case seems to have dropped off the face of the Earth.

The Clinton/Smollett defense.
The reasonable man adapts himself to the world;
the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself.
Therefore, all progress depends on the unreasonable man.
-- George Bernard Shaw

eyeeatingfish

Re: Trump
« Reply #1478 on: March 30, 2019, 10:17:53 PM »
Foreign countries have always worked to push 1 candidate over another.  See who donated money to Hillary.  So it's a double standard now just because it's Trump.  Lets not forget all the DNC's who want illegals coming from Mexico to vote.  Is that not foreign interference? Why do you think many states want to issue drivers license to illegals?  That's so they will be able to vote.  Nothin to see here...

So in EEF's thinking, since EEF has not been cleared of not kidnapping a child, can we assume that you might have?  So until an investigation is done and there is evidence that showed you didn't kidnap a child, can you be put on suspension for your job?  And if the investigation showed that there is no evidence supporting that you did kidnap a child, you're still on suspension until said investigation proves you didn't (exonerated).



Did mexico donate to Hillary? Not sure where you are going in the first paragraph.

As for your second paragraph, I am not sure what the issue is as I gave you an example that pretty clearly lays out a situation where there is not enough information to prove someone did something but it doesn't prove them guilty.
Now if someone had accused me of kidnapping a child then yes an investigation would be warranted but police and special councils don't just go around investigating random possibilities like is EEF a kidnaper. Now if there was a credible claim that I was a kidnapper but an investigation found no evidence of me being a kidnapper then the accurate summary would be that there is no evidence that EEF is a kidnapper.  If the investigation proved that I did not kidnap the child/children in question then they could say the evidence showed I had not kidnapped the children, but if not then it could be said the evidence doesn't show I didn't kidnap the child/children in question either.

Answer me this, so Hillary was investigated and never charged with a crime but she is guilty and should go to prison meanwhile Trump was investigated and never charged with anything and that means he is actually innocent. Do you see where that looks like you are picking and choosing what you would like to believe?


I will say again, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Why is this such a problem? The evidence doesn't show he committed a crime but it didn't show he didn't either. Should we instead insist that the evidence must show him innocent because he is our guy or that we don't dare recognize the facts when they aren't definitive? If Mueller's statement is an accurate summary of the results of his investigation is he supposed to change it to something more appetizing to us?

eyeeatingfish

Re: Trump
« Reply #1479 on: March 30, 2019, 10:23:27 PM »
"Presumption of Innocence" does not mean "Assumption of innocence."

1.  Presumption means it is TRUE Trump is innocent in absence of evidence to the contrary.

2.  Both Mueller and the DOJ said there is zero evidence, direct or indirect, of collusion OR obstruction.

3.  Trump was exonerated due to the lack of evidence contradicting 1. above.

It's simple logic. Only someone refusing to accept the meaning of English vocabulary can argue otherwise.

I agreed with you that Trump is to be presumed innocent. My point of disagreement is how you choose to interpret "exonerated" to favor Trump instead of just looking at it neutrally.