nicko31
Well-known member
Trump did say his presidency would be Brexit x 10, so far he's about right. Hopefully the world will learn from all this
If anybody thinks they can't be arsed to read the whole thing, just read point 9. Let's see him try and pardon himself out of that one. ****
I have no idea as I've not read the tweets, but we've heard this for so long now that "it's only a few days until he gets impeached". It seems too many of the left-wing luvvies have their knickers so twisted they are praying for things to go wrong.
A prime example of this is J K Rowling accusing Trump of ignoring a disabled boy. She got put in her place as being 100% wrong, but wasn't big enough to apologise to Trump for getting it wrong. She said she get it wrong, but didn't apologise and there's a big difference. These luvvies want to appear all pious and important, but aren't big enough to say sorry, so no better than Trump IMO.
I have no idea as I've not read the tweets, but we've heard this for so long now that "it's only a few days until he gets impeached". It seems too many of the left-wing luvvies have their knickers so twisted they are praying for things to go wrong.
A prime example of this is J K Rowling accusing Trump of ignoring a disabled boy. She got put in her place as being 100% wrong, but wasn't big enough to apologise to Trump for getting it wrong. She said she get it wrong, but didn't apologise and there's a big difference. These luvvies want to appear all pious and important, but aren't big enough to say sorry, so no better than Trump IMO.
Nice bit of false equivalency there. Okay Trump may have repeatedly lied, colluded with an enemy power, obstructed justice, used the presidency for personal financial gain, and used all the power available to him in a personal vendetta to undo the legislation of the previous president because his feelings were hurt by a joke at a press dinner, but an author of kids books actually said something on Twitter that was untrue, so she is just as bad.
Yes but you said: "The facts that hillary had a private sevrerm which was acid washed and smashed up" and so far have given me (disputed) references to two laptops being destroyed and a number of emails being deleted - leaving aside acid washed which seems to mean whatever you and Trump decide - where is the evidence that a server has been smashed up?Ive posted time and time again that acid washed is a term for scouring a hard drive with multiple refences to bleachbot and there are multiple sources. You can argue about semantics as much as you like but it wont get you anywhere.
Not at all. I am no fan of Trump, but then again Clinton is a nasty piece of work IMO too. Do I think Trump is doing a good job? - no. However, it's amusing to see the rejection of the Paris accord and the luvvies getting all upset about this saying he doesn't have the authority, when he has as much authority to get rid of this as Obama had to implement it.
Regarding your other comments as to what he has/hasn't done. These are accusations which are not proven yet and come from the luvvies in the press who object to his style. I know fake news is a favourite buzz-word at the moment, but news outlets are all responsible for the excessive sensationalising of any news event. We even see it in the reporting of weather events like flooding FFS. They get the camera angle in such a place to make it look really bad, but if you pan the camera out and see the reality it's not as extreme as portrayed. You get boxing fights as "Fight of the Century", etc, etc. So yes, I am sceptical of news reporting as so much is misrepresented IMO. Too many people want to be the news and not report actual, factual news.
A prime example of this is J K Rowling accusing Trump of ignoring a disabled boy. She got put in her place as being 100% wrong, but wasn't big enough to apologise to Trump for getting it wrong. She said she get it wrong, but didn't apologise and there's a big difference. These luvvies want to appear all pious and important, but aren't big enough to say sorry, so no better than Trump IMO.
I take it you were at the inauguration?
She has apologised in some detail.
It's because Putin stopped those adoptions as retaliation for the Magnitsky Act - which cracks down on Putin's top cronies money laundering and access to assets bought in the US. So talking about adoptions really means talking about lifting the Magnitsky Act.Why on earth would they be discussing the adoption of Russian children? Bizarrer and bizarrer.
People in glass houses.....
The tweet in question was
It's because Putin stopped those adoptions as retaliation for the Magnitsky Act - which cracks down on Putin's top cronies money laundering and access to assets bought in the US. So talking about adoptions really means talking about lifting the Magnitsky Act.
Well we shall see what comes out in the end, but it doesn't look good.Thanks for the info. So... he's effectively helping Putin's cronies? In the middle of an election campaign?