Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Captain Risky

Trump’s revenge

233 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Uncle Sam
10 minutes ago, drakonwick said:

Question! Were Barack Obama supporters threatening the lives of people who disagreed with them? 
I have seen posts of Obama in a noose being hanged! You will never make me believe that some republicans are racially driven.

 

Um question, please do show me evidence of Trump Supporters threatening lives of those that disagree with them? Please do, I am waiting. I could give you hundreds of examples of Antifa, Liberals, Far Left Socialist, and etc, etc threatening the lives of Trump Supporters. Heck just today, an Democrat tried to run over Trump supporters who were supporting their president by registering votes for the RNC. 
 


Information: Complete List of Attacks on Trump Supporters

Oh by the way, that OBAMA noose example of yours is a HOAX! Simple google search would show that. Please all your examples of hatred has been debunked or proven lies by the far left trying to scare people into supporting them.

Obama Doll With Noose Hoax Affects Baymeadows Shell Gas Station

Of course I won't be able to convince you that Democrat voters are extremists who lie, cheat, and commit voter fraud because you plug your ears and don't want to hear it. You reality is so damn warped by MSN, MSNBC, CNN, and other left wing outlets that always trying to spin or lie directly to your face to make you think Trump is a tyrant who is making the United States unlivable disregarding the fact that 90% of United States happy with their lives. Enough is enough man, every day you are sounding more and more mentally unstable it is unreal. Please come back to reality before it is too late.

Edited by Uncle Sam
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
and then
13 minutes ago, Uncle Sam said:

Yeah he is going to be voted out by his voters and replaced by a Republican candidate. Only reason he was re-elected was because he had the backing of Trump.

Too damned right he was... that is the part of his vote that makes me want to spit in his face.  I don't demand lockstep agreement from anyone but he went to Trump and Trump campaigned for him and now this sleaze sticks a shiv in his back.  He needs to take his bullet-proof hair and his magical underwear and go back to land of sand and canyons... It really baffles me that he would take this step while knowing he is basically taking a big old dump of feces on any political future he might have wanted.  I guess it's just another example of TDS.  

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Uncle Sam
7 minutes ago, and then said:

Too damned right he was... that is the part of his vote that makes me want to spit in his face.  I don't demand lockstep agreement from anyone but he went to Trump and Trump campaigned for him and now this sleaze sticks a shiv in his back.  He needs to take his bullet-proof hair and his magical underwear and go back to land of sand and canyons... It really baffles me that he would take this step while knowing he is basically taking a big old dump of feces on any political future he might have wanted.  I guess it's just another example of TDS.  

He is mad that Trump didn't make him the VP of his campaign. After that, things soured between them. This isn't about being impartial or anything, this is him wanting to get Trump for not making him the VP. It is all about revenge and him dragging the lords name into was just a insult to the religious community aka Christians. This all stems back to 2016 elections and the guy is the definition of a RINO Never Trumper after he felt slighted by Trump. It is all about his fragile bruised ego, never liked the guy in the first place because he was always pompous and elitist.

MAMA Pants Mitt Romney!

See the source image

His mom called him and wants her jeans back.

Edited by Uncle Sam
  • Haha 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
drakonwick
5 minutes ago, Uncle Sam said:

Oh by the way, that OBAMA noose example of yours is a HOAX! Simple google search would show that. Please all your examples of hatred has been debunked or proven lies by the far left trying to scare people into supporting them.

You can disagree all you want! I have personally seen posts calling him the N word. Those pics are legit! You can try and explain it way all you want, republicans are known for race bating.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
and then
21 minutes ago, Golden Duck said:

Now we're back discussing emotions.

I'd say that's a valid consideration when those who have been testifying and investigating and spewing lies in the media have been running fueled on nothing BUT the emotion of hate for 3+ years.  At first, when I saw the TDS acronym, I thought it was hyperbole but after 3 YEARS of nonstop, balls to the wall attacks, I've decided that they really ARE mental.  No one in their right mind can sustain that level of anger and focused loathing for that long when the object of their hate is someone they've never met or been personally wronged by.  It just isn't natural.  

Tell me Golden Duck, seriously, what is your best guess about the reaction from the media and the solid blue inner city types if he's re-elected?  I think it's safe to assume they will keep escalating the rhetoric but I don't how they can ramp it up much further short of giving their blessing to actual chaos as resistance.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Uncle Sam
12 minutes ago, drakonwick said:

You can disagree all you want! I have personally seen posts calling him the N word. Those pics are legit! You can try and explain it way all you want, republicans are known for race bating.

Of course there is racists on Republicans side, just like there is racists on Democrats side. Republicans call out their racists and disown them while I haven't seen Democrats do that, infact, they embrace them as long as they give them votes and help them bash Trump. Um... it is the Democrats who are known for race baiting, I swear someone is accusing the Republicans of what the Democrats do. Oh yeah the liberal media keeps trying to paint Republicans with a broad brush on things that the Democrats do. Since the liberal media outnumbers conservative media 5 to 1, duplicate articles across all 5 show up and make it look like Republicans race bait when in fact they hardly do with maybe a handful that have been called out on it.

Democrat Race Baiting

Information: Race Baiting is Now Standard for Democrats

Information: Alveda King, MLK's niece denounces Democrat's race baiting Trump.

Media Lies

Information: Liberal Media Fuels Hatred for Republicans and President

Information: How Liberal Democrats Use Lies to Get What They Want.

Information: 9 Apocalyptic Lies Fed To Americans About Republican Tax Bill

Edited by Uncle Sam
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
and then
1 hour ago, third_eye said:

:lol:

Joker, no, not that one of that movie ... This one... 

[00.03:40]

~

Okay... he appears to be an idiot or he went directly from taking the Bar to some administrative post and seems woefully inadequate to be on the Bench.  That's one...I assume you mean to infer that all the rest are the same?  I wouldn't approve him.  Then again, I wouldn't approve of most who on the bench at the Ninth Circuit, either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
and then
52 minutes ago, Golden Duck said:

TBH, I expected a few more from those who could sit there till 2024

Did it ever occur to you that they actually believe what they've been saying in support of Trump?  Yeah, politicians are always, first and foremost, politicians but the arguments in defense of how he handled that call are at LEAST as valid a narrative as the Nadler/Schiff/Pelosi rantings.  If you really want to go down the road and supporting a lynch mob based on opinions alone then I'd conclude that you wouldn't feel the same if it were YOU under the Dem's microscope.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Uncle Sam
8 minutes ago, and then said:

Okay... he appears to be an idiot or he went directly from taking the Bar to some administrative post and seems woefully inadequate to be on the Bench.  That's one...I assume you mean to infer that all the rest are the same?  I wouldn't approve him.  Then again, I wouldn't approve of most who on the bench at the Ninth Circuit, either.

I am a libertarian aka center-right (Centralist), I wish they stop making me defend the Republicans and showing the corruption in Democrats, I used to vote democrat or republican based on who has the best policy to benefit our nation. I want Democrats to clean up their party from extremists then make their way back to the center and Republicans to continue down the path towards the center. Once they do this, this will mean our nation won't be so divide and our policies would be less extreme. All I got now is Republicans who are becoming more tamed due to bringing in infringed voters from Moderate Democrats, Center Left, Centralists, and Center Right. All there is left for the Democrats is the far left which they are coveting in droves and they have no one but themselves to blame.

Edited by Uncle Sam
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
and then
26 minutes ago, Uncle Sam said:

His mom called him and wants her jeans back

You have to give him a little leeway... I hear that magic underwear can be awkward.  Tommy John, they ain't  ;) 

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Uncle Sam
Just now, and then said:

You have to give him a little leeway... I hear that magic underwear can be awkward.  Tommy John, they ain't  ;) 

LOL... good one. Joking about Mitt Romney and his loose morals really are a good laugh. I mean the dude never been trustworthy and is part of the old Republicans. The new Republican party is much more different, more diverse and more friendly compared to the other one, plus they are more tolerant and can laugh at jokes. No wonder Mitt Romney can't figure out how to gain support, the Republican party is a completely different than when he joined a long time ago. I bet you he would feel more at home in the Democrat party since they are extremely corrupt and only care about gaining more power for themselves while putting anyone down that doesn't agree to them, just like he tried to do to Trump.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
third_eye
29 minutes ago, and then said:

Okay... he appears to be an idiot or he went directly from taking the Bar to some administrative post and seems woefully inadequate to be on the Bench.  That's one...I assume you mean to infer that all the rest are the same?  I wouldn't approve him.  Then again, I wouldn't approve of most who on the bench at the Ninth Circuit, either.

Don't worry, there's still plenty of room in your country's penitentiary system for plenty more of idiots and the like from this administration, you don't get presidential pardons without committing crimes, just make sure the sharpie is within reach of #45

~

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RoofGardener
10 hours ago, Black Red Devil said:

What a ridiculous comparison.  The position of Head of State isn't the same as the position of a CEO or any boss at a company.  In the case of the POTUS he represents a nation, hopefully Democratically and should conduct himself with honesty and integrity towards ALL HIS CITIZENS, even those that disagree with him.  His conduct in this case (and many more) is equivalent to what dictators do.

Oh PLEASE. In what way, precisely, is it "equivelant to what dictators do". It is nothing of the sort, and YOU, my bicoloured friend, are exhibiting TDS! 

 

8 hours ago, third_eye said:

According to your Senators... What the CIC did was wrong, but not enough to be removed from office... 

No, that is not what the Senators said. 

They said he was innocent of the charges against him. 

3 hours ago, drakonwick said:

Anyway, I just want to make it clear! Trump is guilty, and there is no reasoning, or opinions that will change that. The Senate saved his guilty ass.

No reasoning or opinions ? The House of Representatives voted - on partisan lines - to impeach him. The Senate - on partisan lines - voted that the impeachment charges where wrong. Trump is not guilty of the charges against him, in accordance with the Constitutional systems that govern the USA.

THE END. 

Edited by RoofGardener
  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Uncle Sam
19 minutes ago, RoofGardener said:

No reasoning or opinions ? The House of Representatives voted - on partisan lines - to impeach him. The Senate - on partisan lines - voted that the impeachment charges where wrong. Trump is not guilty of the charges against him, in accordance with the Constitutional systems that govern the USA.

THE END. 

Democrats only got Bipartisan vote because Mitt Romney wanted to settle a score aka just one Republican, but Democrats actually lost big time because three democrats defected from the house to Republicans side.

Three Democrat defect during house vote.

 

Edited by Uncle Sam
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
third_eye
42 minutes ago, RoofGardener said:

No, that is not what the Senators said. 

They said he was innocent of the charges against him. 

Nope, gaslight all you want, your BS loopy loops just got you all dopeyed up. 

~

Quote

What’s the point?

So is there any point in going through the motions? If truth is entirely relative and subjective, then no amount of evidence would make Americans on either side of the political divide change their minds on impeachment, the answer is “no.” There is no point.

Still, not going through the motions, not even trying to establish whether the president abused his power, just because minds are closed and politicians are expected to vote along partisan lines would mean giving up on the notion of truth altogether, putting outcomes before constitutional process, and political practicalities before principle. And that would be disastrous.

At this point, all Americans, including the president, should at least be pretending that they want to establish what the facts really mean, instead of railing against the impeachment proceedings.

~

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RoofGardener
8 minutes ago, third_eye said:

Nope, gaslight all you want, your BS loopy loops just got you all dopeyed up. 

What on EARTH are you talking about ? 

The Senate voted to reject the House Impeachment Articles. That means that the President is innocent of those charges. 

Deal with it ! 

  • Like 2
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
bee
1 hour ago, Uncle Sam said:

LOL... good one. Joking about Mitt Romney and his loose morals really are a good laugh.

 

I have to say..... @Uncle Sam and @and then...... you guys are ON FIRE tonight ...
I say tonight because it's night for you although it's morning for me when I'm reading the thread... :) 

and re the quote above.....

Mitt Romney Style (Gangnam Style Parody)

:D

 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
third_eye
1 hour ago, RoofGardener said:

What on EARTH are you talking about ? 

The Senate voted to reject the House Impeachment Articles. That means that the President is innocent of those charges. 

Deal with it ! 

What's behind door number two.... 

Quote
An acquittal signifies that a prosecutor failed to prove his or her case beyond a reasonable doubt, not that a defendant is innocent. Thus, a person may be acquitted of a crime but found civilly liable in a civil case regarding that same crime, e.g. O.J.

~

:lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
joc
10 hours ago, Black Red Devil said:

So these are a CT?  Explain why.

Someone gets subpoenaed to testify in front of Congress, has to attend, otherwise they are held in contempt.  Correct?

This person has to swear under oath in front of Congress.  Correct?

If this person lies in front of Congress under oath they can be charged with fines and imprisonment (up to 5 years I read).  Correct?

 

10 hours ago, Black Red Devil said:
10 hours ago, joc said:

Why are you going on about things you obviously know nothing about?  Instead of letting the Media do your thinking for you...employ Google.  It's amazing what you can find out there.

I did and those were the results.  Alternatively why don't you explain why any of those three points are wrong.

I didn't say that was all untrue.  I was however a bit obtuse...I apologize.  Congress does have broad oversight over the Executive Branch.  But it isn't really as cut and dried as you may think.

Here is some reading you can do  that might help you understand what actually was going on in the scenario between Congress and the White House with regard to subpoenas.

 

What can Congress do if someone refuses a subpoena?

What happens if someone defies a congressional subpoena?
Congress has three options to enforce subpoenas in face of defiance, but none are particularly appealing for lawmakers. (click on link to read options)
It’s improbable that the Trump Justice Department would bring criminal charges against a member of its own administration. During Barack Obama’s presidency, the House voted to hold former Attorney General Eric Holder in contempt of Congress in 2012, but the DOJ chose not to prosecute. 

The White House Argument

To understand the White House's legal argument, William Brangham talks with former House Intelligence Committee staffer Jamil Jaffer.

Jamil Jaffer:

Well, William, there are no requirements in the Constitution for how the House is supposed to conduct an impeachment inquiry.

But prior practice suggests that the House should take a full — a vote of the full House to initiate the impeachment inquiry. As you can imagine, this is a huge issue. It's a conflict between two coordinate, co-equal branches of the government, one investigating the other, somewhat outside of the normal purview of what the House does.

Typically, the House does legislation and oversight. This is a quasi-judicial proceeding. And so it's been the practice, although certainly not a constitutional requirement, for the House to take a vote of the full House before beginning an impeachment inquiry.

Edited by joc
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
acute
6 hours ago, RoofGardener said:

No, that is not what the Senators said. 

They said he was innocent of the charges against him. 

WRONG!

Acquittal does not mean innocent.

Quote

An acquittal signifies that a prosecutor failed to prove his or her case beyond a reasonable doubt, not that a defendant is innocent.

(Cornell>Law)

 

Edited by acute
Oh... third_eye beat me to it! :D
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
South Alabam
15 minutes ago, acute said:

WRONG!

Acquittal does not mean innocent.

Quote

An acquittal signifies that a prosecutor failed to prove his or her case beyond a reasonable doubt, not that a defendant is innocentThus, a person may be acquitted of a crime but found civilly liable in a civil case regarding that same crime, e.g. O.J.

(Cornell>Law)

A failed impeachment will never be taken to a civil court.

Edited by South Alabam

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Doug1029
19 hours ago, bee said:

 

DUH.... of course he's going to get rid of those who actively tried to help bring him down....

Wouldn't you... ?.... he's obliged to because he can't trust them....

There were High Stakes political maneuvers  played out around the Sham Impeachment... 
and there are consequences...

 

Sondland should have seen it coming.  He was Trump's hand-picked replacement ambassador.  He knew what Trump is.  I wouldn't cry any tears for him.

But for some of the others:  would you trust someone who would lie under oath?  He should have fired them long ago.  If they'll lie for you, they'll lie to you.

Doug

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
third_eye

Hmmmm... 

Quote

COULD TRUMP (OR ANY PRESIDENT) BE INDICTED AFTER LEAVING OFFICE? MUELLER, LEGAL EXPERTS SAY YES

~

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
GlitterRose

Yep, this turned out exactly how I thought it was going to.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Gromdor

The funny part is that I am sure Trump will keep the $1 million dollars that Sondland donated to him for the job.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.