192
   

monitoring Trump and relevant contemporary events

 
 
giujohn
 
  -1  
Sun 2 Apr, 2017 09:09 pm
@layman,
layman wrote:

I have a positive net worth!

"In theory" it's a huge negative number, but when asked I just ignore all the loans I've never paid back. They don't count. I aint never gunna pay none of them nohow, so why take that **** into account, I ask ya?

So, as a consequence, my net worth right now is around $5. That includes a half a pack of cigarettes and the 35 cents I have in my pockets. Time to start checking doors to see if they're unlocked again tonight. I done blown last week's haul.


LOL...You're killing me...You're a killer.
0 Replies
 
giujohn
 
  -1  
Sun 2 Apr, 2017 09:11 pm
@Krumple,
Krumpkie...You delinquent, you!
0 Replies
 
giujohn
 
  -1  
Sun 2 Apr, 2017 09:36 pm
@cicerone imposter,
cicerone imposter wrote:

I have studied and worked hard, and when I started earning some money, I also saved and invested well. I had the means to travel extensively, and have visited 81 countries. I don't need to apologize to anyone for being successful.



Holy crap...You've told us 81 times!!
0 Replies
 
giujohn
 
  -2  
Sun 2 Apr, 2017 09:38 pm
@cicerone imposter,
cicerone imposter wrote:

Don't feel stupid at all! My experience was with the USAF for four years working with nukes. The Air Force didn't think I was too stupid either.
After I graduated from college, I went to work for Florsheim Shoe Company as a Field Auditor in the seven western states. After 3.5 years, I was promoted to Audit Manager. I worked in management for the remainder of my working career. I also did consulting work for small businesses, and accumulated enough wealth to save and buy income property, and retired early to travel around the world.



Air Force= Turned down by the Army...so sorry.
giujohn
 
  -2  
Sun 2 Apr, 2017 09:40 pm
@cicerone imposter,
cicerone imposter wrote:

Doesn't kill me at all. Trump is a big failure. He's a racial bigot, liar and con.
Only people like you admire him; the uneducated.
His presidency is one of the worst in history. His disapproval rating is higher than his approval. You must be proud of him.


But I bet he's grabbed more pussy then you!
0 Replies
 
giujohn
 
  -3  
Sun 2 Apr, 2017 09:50 pm
@cicerone imposter,
cicerone imposter wrote:

If you tire of my "blowing the horn" put me on ignore.
I know many accomplished people in this world. I celebrate their accomplishments. A rocket scientist, Bob Brodsky; a college prof at Cal Poly, Richard Pimentel PhD; Dan Piel, graphic artist who has a painting of
John F Kennedy hanging in the Smithonian; several doctors in Tanzania and Singapore - Bashir Samma and Bill Lim. The editor of the English newspaper in Mexico, Francisco Baez - also taught at the university for ten years. Lindsay Hamilton of London, a professional singer and director. There are more.

As a matter of fact, Bob Brodsky has written several books that are biographical that details much of his accomplishments. I've read three of them. He designed the aerodynamics on the first atomic bomb, and taught Astronautics at USC and Iowa State U.


Jesus H Christmas...And still he drones on...You're wife must be a saint...Or she's deaf.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  -2  
Sun 2 Apr, 2017 10:45 pm
@hightor,
hightor wrote:

Quote:
No votes were cast fraudulently, right?

That's not the exclusive definition of "meddling" with an election.
Quote:
...some Russian meddling that obviously didn't impact a single vote?

If someone spreads a false rumor about a candidate in an election and this once-favored candidate loses, I think it's reasonable to accept the spread of the false rumor as having had some impact on the vote, without any additional evidence of ballot fraud. I think the distribution of hacked communications would also qualify as a subversive and criminal action. Whether it cost the candidate a victory is immaterial.


You've just defined campaigning... How is what you've said any different than negative campaign ads, digging up dirt on a nanny 30 years ago, stuff on Saturday Night Live, opinion pieces, editorials, etc......
layman
 
  -4  
Sun 2 Apr, 2017 11:54 pm
@McGentrix,
Hightor wrote:
If someone spreads a false rumor about a candidate in an election...I think the distribution of hacked communications would also qualify as a subversive and criminal action. Whether it cost the candidate a victory is immaterial.


Hacked communications? Like the pussy-grabbing audio recorded and distributed without Trump's consent, ya mean? Or like illegally disclosing his tax returns--**** like that?

False rumors? Ya mean like pretending you have obtained, by paying huge sums, reliable information, FROM THE UNTRUSTWORTHY AND DESPICABLE RUSSIAN KGB, which false information compromises Trump, then spreading it all over creation? That kinda "false rumor?"

Lotta "subversive and criminal action," goin around, eh? Sessions is gunna be kept busy for a good long spell prosecuting all this crime, I figure.

LOCK HER UP.
layman
 
  -3  
Mon 3 Apr, 2017 12:02 am
@McGentrix,
Quote:
You've just defined campaigning... How is what you've said any different than negative campaign ads


It's only bad if the Russians do it (which no one has shown), eh, Gent?

I heard some congressman complaining that he had heard that Russia paid people to go on the internet to disparage Clinton. Like both parties don't do the same damn thing, year in, year out?

How are we gunna stop these evil Russians, I wonder? Abolish the internet in this country, maybe?

Maybe just abolish all free speech, because ya just never know when the guy talkin might be a damn Russian, ya know?
0 Replies
 
Blickers
 
  5  
Mon 3 Apr, 2017 12:03 am
@layman,
It wasn't illegal for MSNBC to show the partial tax return.

And every other president since Nixon disclosed their tax returns SEVERAL YEARS BACK, but Trump steadfastly refused. What's Trump hiding? I think we all know-detailed tax returns are likely to point the way to the people Trump has been doing business with.

Not to mention that Trump co-operated with the Republican head of a committee investigating Trump, Kevin Nunes, to blow the investigation up.

Let's not overlook that Trump has filled his Administration with people fresh off the Kremlin payroll.
layman
 
  -3  
Mon 3 Apr, 2017 12:13 am
@Blickers,
Quote:
It wasn't illegal for MSNBC to show the partial tax return.


Ya think? Tax returns are given special privacy protections. The federal law on the topic specifically makes the unauthorized "publication" of a private tax return a felony.

It wasn't illegal for them to publish hacked Clinton emails, so why are all of you cheese-eaters complaining about THAT if you don't think there's any problem with stealing and publishing a tax return?
layman
 
  -3  
Mon 3 Apr, 2017 12:44 am
@layman,
Quote:
Tax returns are given special privacy protections.


Which makes perfect sense, of course. This kinda information is submitted to the feds by private citizens under compulsion of federal law.

The government has a special duty to do as much as it can to prevent this confidential information, which has been entrusted to them by citizens, from becoming public.

Don't take my word for it, look for yourself:

Quote:
26 U.S. Code § 7213 - Unauthorized disclosure of information

(3) Other persons:

It shall be unlawful for any person to whom any return or return information (as defined in section 6103(b)) is disclosed in a manner unauthorized by this title thereafter willfully to print or publish in any manner not provided by law any such return or return information. Any violation of this paragraph shall be a felony punishable by a fine in any amount not exceeding $5,000, or imprisonment of not more than 5 years, or both, together with the costs of prosecution.


https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/7213
layman
 
  -3  
Mon 3 Apr, 2017 01:02 am
@layman,
Quote:
Don't take my word for it, look for yourself:


What was I thinkin? Every cheese-eater will believe what Rachel Maddcow says about the law. No need to read it for themselves, now, is there?

I might as well just fess up, I guess: The statute actually says "any person EXCEPT Rachel Maddcow," but I cut that part out.

Rachel is a VERY special person (just ask her) who has been granted special dispensation from congress to violate the law with impugnity.
0 Replies
 
giujohn
 
  -3  
Mon 3 Apr, 2017 02:49 am
@McGentrix,
McGentrix wrote:

hightor wrote:

Quote:
No votes were cast fraudulently, right?

That's not the exclusive definition of "meddling" with an election.
Quote:
...some Russian meddling that obviously didn't impact a single vote?

If someone spreads a false rumor about a candidate in an election and this once-favored candidate loses, I think it's reasonable to accept the spread of the false rumor as having had some impact on the vote, without any additional evidence of ballot fraud. I think the distribution of hacked communications would also qualify as a subversive and criminal action. Whether it cost the candidate a victory is immaterial.


You've just defined campaigning... How is what you've said any different than negative campaign ads, digging up dirt on a nanny 30 years ago, stuff on Saturday Night Live, opinion pieces, editorials, etc......

Oh... And BTW...They were never denied as being false...But rather, most if not all of it we now know to be true.
hightor
 
  5  
Mon 3 Apr, 2017 03:00 am
@McGentrix,
I don't think US presidential campaigns should be secretly financed by foreign governments trying to disrupt a rather vital link in our political process. If Russia, for instance, wants to support "Good Governance" in the USA it can promote a dedicated NGO and register to work in the USA. There are limits on domestic dirty tricks as well — as Nixon found out. Yes, it's true that lies, derision, and outright mockery are seen in US campaigns — whether specific acts violate election laws depends on the particular circumstances. I'd be pretty pissed, for instance, if it turned out that all the SNL sketches about Trump were coordinated with the DNC. Burgling the other party's political headquarters or hacking into the opposition party's servers crosses a line. If we find out there was collusion with a foreign government that would probably raise legal issues as well. In any of these cases, "meddling" in the electoral process can occur independently of ballot fraud or vote tally manipulation. That was my point.



0 Replies
 
hightor
 
  4  
Mon 3 Apr, 2017 03:03 am
@giujohn,
Quote:
Oh... And BTW...They were never denied as being false...But rather, most if not all of it we now know to be true.

That was an example of election meddling, not a specific reference to the '16 campaign.
Quote:
I think the distribution of hacked communications would also qualify as a subversive and criminal action.

That comment refers to '16.
0 Replies
 
Below viewing threshold (view)
izzythepush
 
  2  
Mon 3 Apr, 2017 03:52 am
This is chilling, glad I don't like in S Korea or Japan. Bet Putin's pleased though.

Quote:
US President Donald Trump has said the United States will "solve" the nuclear threat from North Korea, with or without China's help.

"If China is not going to solve North Korea, we will. That is all I am telling you," he said in an interview with UK newspaper the Financial Times.

Pressed on whether he thought he could succeed alone, he replied: "Totally."

Mr Trump was speaking ahead of a scheduled visit from Chinese President Xi Jinping this week.

"China has great influence over North Korea. And China will either decide to help us with North Korea, or they won't. And if they do that will be very good for China, and if they don't it won't be good for anyone," Mr Trump told the FT.

Asked if he meant "one-on-one" unilateral action, Mr Trump said: "I don't have to say any more."

He did not give any further details on what action he would take


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-39475178

This could be another piece of Trump blowhard bullshit or it could be a serious attempt to deflect from his disastrous domestic failures. I remember constant war being very much a factor of 1984, East Asia, not Eurasia.
oralloy
 
  -4  
Mon 3 Apr, 2017 04:02 am
@giujohn,
giujohn wrote:
I recommend instead of blathers daily fiction you should watch Star Trek reruns...At least that will be a lot less boring.

Great advice there.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  -4  
Mon 3 Apr, 2017 04:03 am
@jcboy,
jcboy wrote:
It just wasn't important to fill the Supreme Court position a year ago. Why now? Don't even say it's not political.

Of course it was political.

If the Democrats don't want to lose a fight, they shouldn't start a fight.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 1.74 seconds on 04/30/2025 at 08:02:02