Donald Trump campaign made contact with Russian officials at least 18 times during presidential camp

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Nothing illegal here though!

IF Obama or Miss Clinton had been under same standards as trump, both would have been in jail by now!

In my lifetime, Ive never seen anyone remotely presidential go to jail. Their underlings (like the Nixon crew) go to jail, but Dick didn't.....he resigned & went to Bergen County NJ---Think he lived in the exclusive Upper Saddle River. Now Chicago Mayors & Governors.......that's another thing. Say hello to Bloggo for me.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Hmmmm, but Trump is not telling the truth. But then when does he ever tell the truth. No Russian has ever invested in an Obama business. They have invested at least $100 million in Trump businesses.

How do you know that.....what accounting did you receive. I ask cause I haven't seen it. So what am I missing?

 

[HankD]

No mention of it has been made anywhere or by anyone that I know about ... do you know something different?

Uh, yes I gave the URL
ttps://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/24/...s-pressed-for-control-of-uranium-company.html

He will is a new special investigation is established. Congress is controlled by Republicans and the president is Republican. They have not seen anything that causes them to call for a special investigator. Must realize there is nothing there.

Well when all these questionable activities were going on we were under a different administration, one in which there seemed a different view of what questionable political activities looked like.

HankD

 

[Happy]

Hmmmm, but Trump is not telling the truth. But then when does he ever tell the truth. No Russian has ever invested in an Obama business. They have invested at least $100 million in Trump businesses.

Trump told you, you simply choose not to believe him.

LOL Obama's business is advocating and uh advocating; no office necessary to sell anything.

Yes, Trump is a working man. Finally one of those kind of men in the WH.

 

[Crabtownboy]

Trump told you, you simply choose not to believe him.

Which version of what he says should I believe.

LOL Obama's business is advocating and uh advocating; no office necessary to sell anything.

Yes, Trump is a working man. Finally one of those kind of men in the WH.

But not an honest working man. He has stiffed workers and sub-contractors. He has used illegal aliens such as the Polish workers he hired in Florida and then cheated.

He is not the model of an honest or moral man.

 

[Happy]

Which version of what he says should I believe.

LOL Obama's business is advocating and uh advocating; no office necessary to sell anything.



But not an honest working man. He has stiffed workers and sub-contractors. He has used illegal aliens such as the Polish workers he hired in Florida and then cheated.

He is not the model of an honest or moral man.

Speaking of DIShonest or IMmoral.....

Here is YOUR words......("Polish workers...he (Trump) hired").

Trump's office HIRED a LEGAL contractor.

The LEGAL contractor HIRED illegal Polish alien SUB-Contractors.

SUB-Contractors work for the Contractor!

When you echo a liar with "your words", the dishonesty falls on you.

 

[Crabtownboy]

Speaking of DIShonest or IMmoral.....

Here is YOUR words......("Polish workers...he (Trump) hired").

Trump's office HIRED a LEGAL contractor.

The LEGAL contractor HIRED illegal Polish alien SUB-Contractors.

SUB-Contractors work for the Contractor!

When you echo a liar with "your words", the dishonesty falls on you.

Just like Truman said, "The buck stops here" regardless of whether Trump was the head of a corporation or president. He is ultimately responsible ... just like the captain of a ship.

Did Trump try to set things right for the workers? No!

Did he ever attempt to set things right with those he stiffed? No!

 

[HankD]

Just like Truman said, "The buck stops here" regardless of whether Trump was the head of a corporation or president. He is ultimately responsible ... just like the captain of a ship.

Did Trump try to set things right for the workers? No!

Did he ever attempt to set things right with those he stiffed? No!

Was Obama president when this possibly traitorous deal was made?

https://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/24/...ssed-for-control-of-uranium-company.html?_r=0

Uh, Mr Mueller can you look into this for us (From the basket of the deplorables).
And the NY Times.

HankD

 

[Happy]

Just like Truman said, "The buck stops here" regardless of whether Trump was the head of a corporation or president. He is ultimately responsible ... just like the captain of a ship.

And? Do you have a subsequent point?

Did Trump try to set things right for the workers? No!

Oh, lookie here, YOUR subsequent point. Except, that like much that comes out of your mouth, YOUR POINT, is false.

Did he ever attempt to set things right with those he stiffed? No!

Oh, lookie here, YOU reiterate YOUR false POINT.

The fact is; It was an American UNION that sued Trump. Their complaint was Trump hired illegal Polish aliens to work for Him....(when American UNION workers should have been hired).

Boo hoo. Trump selected a LEGAL Polish immigrant Contractor to work for him.

The court ordered 1 million to be paid to the complainant ie (the American UNION, that did NO WORK on Trumps project).

The court order $ 325,000 + interest be paid, BY Trump, to the ALIEN Polish workers, who were Sub-contractors, Hired BY, the Contractor Trump Hired.

The case was appealed then settled out of court. A settlement is a result of a complainant and defendant settling their differences WITHOUT NOTICE of the details of the settlement given to YOU.

So once again, you make statements that are false.

You repeatedly reveal you do not know the facts and then make false statements based on your LACK of facts.

But no problem, YOU are helping the PLAN to be effected.

 

[Happy]

Was Obama president when this possibly traitorous deal was made?

https://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/24/...ssed-for-control-of-uranium-company.html?_r=0

Uh, Mr Mueller can you look into this for us (From the basket of the deplorables).
And the NY Times.

HankD

 

[InTheLight]

Was Obama president when this possibly traitorous deal was made?

HankD

At least he's not Hillary.
Look-ee at this thing that Obama did.

Not a defense for what Trump does.



Sent from my Motorola Droid Turbo.

 

[Happy]

At least he's not Hillary.
Look-ee at this thing that Obama did.

Not a defense for what Trump does.

No one is claiming a defense.
It is simply political banter, that both sides engage in.

 

[HankD]

At least he's not Hillary.
Look-ee at this thing that Obama did.

Not a defense for what Trump does.

Yes it is.

HankD

 

[HankD]

At least he's not Hillary.
Look-ee at this thing that Obama did.

Not a defense for what Trump does.

Yes it is.

HankD

 

[Happy]

Yes it is.

HankD

I wouldn't call it a DEFENSE, but would say, it is more to the point, of ....

Stop whizzing on my leg and tell me it's raining.
Sweep your own porch before you worry about mine.

 

[HankD]

I wouldn't call it a DEFENSE, but would say, it is more to the point, of ....

Stop whizzing on my leg and tell me it's raining.
Sweep your own porch before you worry about mine.

It's a defense because the list of items comes right out of Alinsky's "Rules For Radicals".

HankD

 

[Happy]

It's a defense because the list of items comes right out of Alinsky's "Rules For Radicals".

HankD

I Do not agree with you on your point. I also do not look to Alinsky for his definitions.

Saying to a person, go observe your own choices of whom you support and what they do, before wagging your tongue at me, is not IMO, a defense for WHAT Trump does, but rather pointing out the complainer's hypocrisy.

 

[HankD]

I Do not agree with you on your point. I also do not look to Alinsky for his definitions.

Saying to a person, go observe your own choices of whom you support and what they do, before wagging your tongue at me, is not IMO, a defense for WHAT Trump does, but rather pointing out the complainer's hypocrisy.

The use of the alinsky list and/or tactics prove where the individual is coming from.

IOW he/she and what tactics he/she is using is the very proof itself and the defense of the object of their attack.

The attack proves they know the truth and it is why they are attacking.

Now I agree that hypocrisy may also enter into the picture as well.

IMO, It's a double-barrel defense.


HankD

 

[Happy]

The use of the alinsky list and/or tactics prove where the individual is coming from.

IOW he/she and what tactics he/she is using is the very proof itself and the defense of the object of their attack.

The attack proves they know the truth and it is why they are attacking.

Now I agree that hypocrisy may also enter into the picture as well.

IMO, It's a double-barrel defense.


HankD

Double - barrel....

IMO it is more like, it is acceptable to THEM to use finger wagging as a defense. <--- that relating to Alinsky's teaching.

Agree - "know the truth", but attack.....would mostly relate to IMO, to those IN Government, regardless of which side of the line they sit.

Challenge - "they know the truth", relating to the Dems/Liberals in the public at large.... eh no.
They read the "talking points"...."headlines".....but fail to comprehend when the articles themselves contradict the "talking points and headlines"...

 

[HankD]

Double - barrel....

IMO it is more like, it is acceptable to THEM to use finger wagging as a defense. <--- that relating to Alinsky's teaching.

Agree - "know the truth", but attack.....would mostly relate to IMO, to those IN Government, regardless of which side of the line they sit.

Challenge - "they know the truth", relating to the Dems/Liberals in the public at large.... eh no.
They read the "talking points"...."headlines".....but fail to comprehend when the articles themselves contradict the "talking points and headlines"...

OK, the general public - sheep.

For the most part I'm talking about the hard-core inner circle marxist, they know the opposing truth intellectually and they understand the facts and issues concerning smaller government, the Bill of Rights, Free enterprise., etc... i.e they know but do not accept them as viable. They give the flotsam and jetsam short cuts (Like Alinsky's Rules For Radicals) - kind of like Cliff notes for "how to Become an Armchair Revolutionary" or "Revolutionary Activities for Dummies".

HankD