|
Replies: 18
| visibility 449
|
110%er [5694]
TigerPulse: 92%
Posts: 12170
Joined: 9/28/08
|
|
|
|
 |
All-TigerNet [11211]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 14058
Joined: 9/2/03
|
Here is your history lesson.
Oct 14, 2022, 10:01 AM
|
|
DJT is a conman. Most of us know that now, but you appear to be a miserable judge of character or simply have none of your own.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [13160]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 14157
Joined: 11/2/15
|
Re: Here is your history lesson.
Oct 14, 2022, 10:04 AM
|
|
DJT: "Germany is financing Putin's Army via natural gas purchases, but wants US to protect them from Putin"
Biden: "Raising taxes and paying off student loans will cool the planet"
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [7159]
TigerPulse: 96%
Posts: 9717
Joined: 10/6/21
|
Re: Here is your history lesson.
Oct 14, 2022, 10:38 AM
[ in reply to Here is your history lesson. ] |
|
Prove to us the con. Bet you can't do it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [42197]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 38274
Joined: 11/30/98
|
I mean, which con?
Oct 14, 2022, 12:18 PM
|
|
Are you talking about all his business ones where he cheated people, like Trump University or the casino? Or do you mean the con of all the gullible people who fell for him as president?
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [7159]
TigerPulse: 96%
Posts: 9717
Joined: 10/6/21
|
Re: I mean, which con?
Oct 14, 2022, 4:07 PM
|
|
Pick any one of DJT's cons as president.
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [7159]
TigerPulse: 96%
Posts: 9717
Joined: 10/6/21
|
Re: I mean, which con?
Oct 14, 2022, 4:26 PM
[ in reply to I mean, which con? ] |
|
Oops, I saw that you had already listed two from DJT's pre-presidential days. (Your 'gullible voters' example is not an example; it's a political statement commonly parroted by gullible leftists.)
Here goes:
Trump University. This wasn't a con, it was a narcissistic thing by Trump actually thinking that a person who had spent time in his school would be successful in some kind of business. Just like his reality TV show Apprentice, he succumbed to the limelight into believing infallibility. I'll be the first to tell you that I hated both The Apprentice and Trump University for the absurdity of both.
But stupid as they were, neither Apprentice nor Trump University were cons. Worthless, yes. Cons, no.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Casino (assuming you're referencing his Taj Mahal Atlantic City Casino?): It went bankrupt. Just like most other Atlantic City Casinos. That Trump used bankruptcy laws to mitigate the payout from a bankruptcy filing does not make this a con in any way. The investors in the various Atlantic City casinos were not 'conned' ... they charged higher than normal interest rates as the 'risk premium' which goes with most major construction projects.
Only neophytes about business and finance confuse a bankruptcy filing with a con.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Fooling gullible voters to vote for him? You are in way over your head here ... you really don't want to start comparing examples of failures in the Trump presidency to those of the Biden presidency.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [11211]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 14058
Joined: 9/2/03
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [7159]
TigerPulse: 96%
Posts: 9717
Joined: 10/6/21
|
Re: Are you phukkin stupid, RTD?***
Oct 14, 2022, 4:09 PM
|
|
Show me that I'm stupid.
Go ahead, you get to pick out a specific con when President DJT was president.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [11211]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 14058
Joined: 9/2/03
|
Yeah yer
Oct 14, 2022, 11:08 PM
|
|
phukkin stupid.
Take yer pick Fluffnut, keeping top secret documents, trying to extort Ukraine’s pres, holding a phukkin Bible up like he even knows who God is. #### that guy. If you can’t see it that’s your problem. Don’t let yourself be a waste on society.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [42197]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 38274
Joined: 11/30/98
|
The debate yesterday
Oct 14, 2022, 10:17 AM
|
|
In which xtiger got completely lawn mowered, was the claim that people had stated that it was a FACT that Trump sold nuke secrets.
No one here said that. When challenged to prove it, he posted a link that actually showed no one said it was a fact.
YES, people implied it or questioned it. But that wasn't the discussion, so this OP is unnecessary.
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [7159]
TigerPulse: 96%
Posts: 9717
Joined: 10/6/21
|
Debate yesterday - NC retroactively proved XT's assertion
Oct 14, 2022, 10:37 AM
|
|
Another intelligently worded deflection from the Grand Poobah of Deflection Tactics, Mr. Cat.
The OP was a retroactive kill shot that yesterday's post by XT, despite the subsequent avalanche of denials by TNet's Deflection Squad, was legitimate.
This is called 'setting the record straight.'
Of course, deflection is the only remaining defense tactic, as is the assertion that 'this OP is unnecessary.'
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [42197]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 38274
Joined: 11/30/98
|
Nothing was proven
Oct 14, 2022, 11:07 AM
|
|
X said this (###### grammar not corrected):"speaking of Jan 6 trial, where are we on Trump selling
the nuclear codes to the saudi's? Trump should've been hung in the town square by now. So many jungers in here said that was fact, not some conspiracy theory."
NO ONE said it was a fact. Not a single person. Not one of you can provide that.
Did people posit it as a possibility, or insinuate it likely happened? Yes. But that's not the claim X made.
I think we see the problem why so many of y'all struggle in these debates is because you really don't get it when someone says "fact".
When someone states something is a fact, that means they're saying it is unquestionably the case and has been proven as such. This. Isn't. Hard.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Heisman Winner [137988]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 63824
Joined: 10/22/00
|
I think they've been confused ever since Kellyanne Conway
Oct 14, 2022, 12:06 PM
|
|
posited the "Theory of Alternative Facts" back in 2017, over something as fuckall stupid as the number of attendees at Trump's inauguration.
Ever since that day, "fact" is now a fluid concept.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [42197]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 38274
Joined: 11/30/98
|
Re: I think they've been confused ever since Kellyanne Conway
Oct 14, 2022, 12:13 PM
|
|
This is why my media arguments with them are mind-numbingly dumb; we're literally having to argue with them what defines a fact.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Famer [20542]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 11691
Joined: 10/15/02
|
Re: A history lesson
Oct 14, 2022, 10:39 AM
|
|
Do you have any kind of reason yet why Trump took the stuff? (And he did take the stuff. He is demanding - in court - the Gubmint return the stuff to him. In his own words: "those documents are mine." So don't even try to start with "he didn't have them" or "the FBI planted them." Just save that bullsh!t, pre-emptively.)
So now...motive? What was he doing with all those Top Secret/classified docs he was informed in about 50 different ways he shouldn't have been in possession of them again?
Nobody has yet said. So you will forgive us "sheep" - good God, you're an nincompoop who thinks he's a genius, at least Forest Gump knew he Wasn't A Bright Man - for speculating about that.
I await a rational answer. Holding my breath here. One is forthcoming, I'm certain.
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [5694]
TigerPulse: 92%
Posts: 12170
Joined: 9/28/08
|
Re: A history lesson
Oct 14, 2022, 11:05 AM
|
|
Why did HRC send classified emails? Do you have a reason she set up a DIY email server? Could it be because she was working pay-to-play collecting literally 100s of millions in the corrupt Clinton Foundation and wanted 100% control of all her communications?
Why did every President keep classified and unclassified docs?
Just because you don't know the answer to a question doesn't mean it is illegal or nefarious.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Famer [20542]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 11691
Joined: 10/15/02
|
Re: A history lesson
Oct 14, 2022, 11:18 AM
|
|
And that's a pure Whatabout, plus it's hogwash. Hillary provided answers and appeared before Congress and took her flogging and admitted in at least minimal (if unsatisfactory, in my view) fashion that she'd been an idiot and her action had allowed hostile foreign powers a window with which to compromise State Department business, some of which was classified. (Nowhere near the level that Trump's stuff was, mind, so no, despite your invective, it was not "1000x worse" for Hillary, quite the opposite.)
But Hillary's cavalier attitude towards the system was still dumb, unforgiveable, the result of laziness and entitlement, and it should have been more than enough, IMHO, to DQ her from further access to classified material and as such maybe even should have made her ineligible to be a presidential candidate.
And every president has not kept classified material. Hogwash. LBJ did regarding JFK. Nixon tried it again. This prompted the 1978 Presidential Records Act.
https://www.npr.org/2022/08/13/1117297065/trump-documents-history-national-archives-law-watergate
Trump hasn't remotely faced the music for what he's done. And he certainly hasn't provided even a minimal explanation for why the eff he had the stuff and seems to have gone to enormous pains to avoid giving it back, which likely has walked him right into an obstruction charge on top of an espionage charge.
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [7159]
TigerPulse: 96%
Posts: 9717
Joined: 10/6/21
|
Re: A judicial lesson (from a non-lawyer)
Oct 14, 2022, 4:40 PM
[ in reply to Re: A history lesson ] |
|
Creative speculation is not a good basis from which facts are extrapolated.
Creative speculation: Trump needs money and therefore took Gov't documents to sell them to foreign powers.
(Relatively speaking) pikers such as Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Obama might do this, because politics is their only path to big time wealth.
But a person with ~ $2.5B net worth (per Forbes - Sept. 2022) wouldn't need to take the risk of selling gov't documents to foreign entities. The risk vs. reward calculation is not good, and like him or not, Trump isn't stupid when it comes to finance and risk/reward decisions.
In other words, while there is rational motive for common crooks like the Clintons to capitalize on their gov't connections to build their fortune, there is no such parallel with Trump because his net worth is already more than enough ... even for him.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Innocent until proven guilty makes a lot more sense than 'something must have made him do it' in this latest episode of "Orange Man Bad."
|
|
|
|
|
|
Replies: 18
| visibility 449
|
|
|
50
