America's #1 Online Cigar Auction
first, best, biggest!

Last post 7 years ago by dstieger. 58 replies replies.
2 Pages12>
Donald Trump; Screwing Everyone He Can.
Jump to Bottom | Previous Topic | Next Topic
Brewha Offline
#1 Posted: Tue, Aug 16 2016, 8:39 PM EST
Joined: 01-25-2010
Posts: 12,182
In the ultimate act of disrespect for true, red blooded, WASP Americans - The Don has really shown his cards on this one; screwing golfers -

http://golf.swingbyswing.com/article/trump-in-legal-battle-with-golf-club-members


And his family is full of weasels too....
MACS Offline
#2 Posted: Tue, Aug 16 2016, 8:54 PM EST
Joined: 02-26-2004
Posts: 79,791
Golf sux.
ZRX1200 Offline
#3 Posted: Tue, Aug 16 2016, 9:23 PM EST
Joined: 07-08-2007
Posts: 60,615
Has he ever used PUBLIC OFFICE HE HELD for private gain?

And what sector is he trying out for?
sd72 Offline
#4 Posted: Tue, Aug 16 2016, 9:45 PM EST
Joined: 03-09-2011
Posts: 9,600
Hillary steals and let's people die. Trump pimped a golfer? Meh.
zitotczito Offline
#5 Posted: Tue, Aug 16 2016, 10:02 PM EST
Joined: 08-21-2006
Posts: 6,441
Brewha wrote:
In the ultimate act of disrespect for true, red blooded, WASP Americans - The Don has really shown his cards on this one; screwing golfers -

http://golf.swingbyswing.com/article/trump-in-legal-battle-with-golf-club-members


And his family is full of weasels too....


Democratic name calling again.
teedubbya Offline
#6 Posted: Tue, Aug 16 2016, 10:05 PM EST
Joined: 08-14-2003
Posts: 95,637
Yea trump isn't about personal gain at all. Trust him big league.
Speyside Offline
#7 Posted: Tue, Aug 16 2016, 11:05 PM EST
Joined: 03-16-2015
Posts: 13,106
Yah, max trust with things like nuclear codes and the football.
Brewha Offline
#8 Posted: Wed, Aug 17 2016, 7:47 AM EST
Joined: 01-25-2010
Posts: 12,182
MACS wrote:
Golf sux.

Commie!
Brewha Offline
#9 Posted: Wed, Aug 17 2016, 7:48 AM EST
Joined: 01-25-2010
Posts: 12,182
ZRX1200 wrote:
Has he ever used PUBLIC OFFICE HE HELD for private gain?

And what sector is he trying out for?

So, you're saying people are on to him and he needs to find fresh grounds to pillage?
MACS Offline
#10 Posted: Wed, Aug 17 2016, 7:57 AM EST
Joined: 02-26-2004
Posts: 79,791
Speyside wrote:
Yah, max trust with things like nuclear codes and the football.


Why do people always talk about the nuke codes? Do you know the process? Do you think, for one second, the president could just walk into a room and push the little red button?

No. There are protocols. It isn't going to happen because Donnie got mad.

I'm more worried about Hillary giving away more of our intel than Donnie launching.
DrafterX Offline
#11 Posted: Wed, Aug 17 2016, 7:59 AM EST
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 98,555
MACS wrote:


I'm more worried about Hillary SELLING more of our intel than Donnie launching.



There ya go... ThumpUp
tonygraz Offline
#12 Posted: Wed, Aug 17 2016, 8:26 AM EST
Joined: 08-11-2008
Posts: 20,262
There Ya go - giving Donald another idea of stuff to sell to the Russians just in time for his first briefing.
tailgater Offline
#13 Posted: Wed, Aug 17 2016, 9:17 AM EST
Joined: 06-01-2000
Posts: 26,185
MACS wrote:
Why do people always talk about the nuke codes? Do you know the process? Do you think, for one second, the president could just walk into a room and push the little red button?

No. There are protocols. It isn't going to happen because Donnie got mad.

I'm more worried about Hillary giving away more of our intel than Donnie launching.


Sounds silly when you say it out loud, but real people who are otherwise seemingly intelligent repeatedly talk about "the button".
And these people are allowed to vote.
TMCTLT Offline
#14 Posted: Wed, Aug 17 2016, 10:16 AM EST
Joined: 11-22-2007
Posts: 19,733
MACS wrote:
Why do people always talk about the nuke codes? Do you know the process? Do you think, for one second, the president could just walk into a room and push the little red button?

No. There are protocols. It isn't going to happen because Donnie got mad.

I'm more worried about Hillary giving away more of our intel than Donnie launching.




Thank You.....and AMEN
teedubbya Offline
#15 Posted: Wed, Aug 17 2016, 10:32 AM EST
Joined: 08-14-2003
Posts: 95,637
I think it has to do with the trouble folks are having with the terms literal, sarcasm, and kidding.


I am worried about Don the Cons self control however to the point that I'm not sure he will not mishandle the intel he will be getting today. He is a petulant child with no filter. Some like him for that. Good on you. It worries me.
Gene363 Offline
#16 Posted: Wed, Aug 17 2016, 10:33 AM EST
Joined: 01-24-2003
Posts: 30,820
MACS wrote:


I'm more worried about the intel Hillary already gave away than Donnie launching.



I fixed it for ya. Angel
DrafterX Offline
#17 Posted: Wed, Aug 17 2016, 10:33 AM EST
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 98,555
Hillary was prolly talking about her belly button..... Mellow
teedubbya Offline
#18 Posted: Wed, Aug 17 2016, 10:35 AM EST
Joined: 08-14-2003
Posts: 95,637
Just out of curiosity what intel did she sell?
Gene363 Offline
#19 Posted: Wed, Aug 17 2016, 10:35 AM EST
Joined: 01-24-2003
Posts: 30,820
tonygraz wrote:
There Ya go - giving Donald another idea of stuff to sell to the Russians just in time for his first briefing.


Yeah, like uranium reserves... Oh wait, Killary already did that.
DrafterX Offline
#20 Posted: Wed, Aug 17 2016, 10:36 AM EST
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 98,555
we'll never know.. those e-mails got deleted... Mellow
Gene363 Offline
#21 Posted: Wed, Aug 17 2016, 10:37 AM EST
Joined: 01-24-2003
Posts: 30,820
teedubbya wrote:
Just out of curiosity what intel did she sell?


She didn't get a dime, she let it be stolen, "highly irresponsible" I think it was called.
Carib1 Offline
#22 Posted: Wed, Aug 17 2016, 10:38 AM EST
Joined: 11-25-2015
Posts: 140
Geez, dude. This the best you can come up with?
teedubbya Offline
#23 Posted: Wed, Aug 17 2016, 10:43 AM EST
Joined: 08-14-2003
Posts: 95,637
So what was the intel and who got it ($ or not)?

I hate Hillary, I'm just trying to find out the facts here. And for the record Trump hasn't given any intel away either, although he doesn't have any yet.
teedubbya Offline
#24 Posted: Wed, Aug 17 2016, 10:44 AM EST
Joined: 08-14-2003
Posts: 95,637
By the way did Trump ever get to the bottom of the whole birther thing that started his political journey?
DrafterX Offline
#25 Posted: Wed, Aug 17 2016, 10:49 AM EST
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 98,555
teedubbya wrote:
By the way did Trump ever get to the bottom of the whole birther thing that started his political journey?






Not yet... As soon as he becomes President it's his number 1 agenda... Mellow




(thought I'd better start using the quote thing again.. was getting confusing and stuff.. d'oh! )
Gene363 Offline
#26 Posted: Wed, Aug 17 2016, 11:30 AM EST
Joined: 01-24-2003
Posts: 30,820
teedubbya wrote:
So what was the intel and who got it ($ or not)?

I hate Hillary, I'm just trying to find out the facts here. And for the record Trump hasn't given any intel away either, although he doesn't have any yet.


The FBI didn't mention the content of classified information found on her servers and the hackers prolly sold the good stuff. A turncoat Iranian scientist was supposedly outed and subsequently executed in Iran.
teedubbya Offline
#27 Posted: Wed, Aug 17 2016, 11:51 AM EST
Joined: 08-14-2003
Posts: 95,637
My understanding is the Iranian was completely public knowledge and the more I look at it it doesn't look like there was really anything of substance that was "classified". She's still an efftard for what she did with the server etc but I'm thinking the "confidential" peice is much to do about nothing the more I look at it. Folks trying to make it something it isn't (over shooting the runway)
DrafterX Offline
#28 Posted: Wed, Aug 17 2016, 11:54 AM EST
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 98,555
So, you're saying the poor bassard deserved it..?? Huh
teedubbya Offline
#29 Posted: Wed, Aug 17 2016, 12:15 PM EST
Joined: 08-14-2003
Posts: 95,637
No I'm saying her emails had nothing to do with it to anyone that takes the time to really look at it.

He went back voluntarily knowing his status was public knowledge having nothing to do with her email. We don't really even know her email was hacked. It's a huge stretch when folks try to establish direct or even indirect cause. There's no there there.

The Valerie Plame/plume whatever situation was more directly tied to loose lips but even it wasn't worthy of the outrage it got.
Brewha Offline
#30 Posted: Thu, Aug 18 2016, 1:52 PM EST
Joined: 01-25-2010
Posts: 12,182
The Clinton E-mails are the same thing as the Obama birth certificate; the repubs need a talking point to make her look bad because they are too smart to even try and make Trump look good.

And so on, and on, we hear "She might have", "is suspected of", "could have done it" with nothing real to go on. But remember the goal is not to prove some dirt that they don't have - it is to keep attention off of the foul up the GOP is running.
DrafterX Offline
#31 Posted: Thu, Aug 18 2016, 2:17 PM EST
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 98,555
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R2aaFsnqMUg

just sayin... Mellow
MACS Offline
#32 Posted: Thu, Aug 18 2016, 2:18 PM EST
Joined: 02-26-2004
Posts: 79,791
Ever serve in the military, Brewha? All military personnel who will, or may have, access to information that is deemed confidential (lowest) to top secret SCI (highest) has to sign a form stating they will not disclose any of that information to persons not authorized to receive it, and do everything within their power to protect it.

You can not believe that the Secretary of State did not have to read and sign something similar. And then you'd have to be a complete moron to believe she had NO idea that setting up a private server for such information could potentially compromise it.

Had a military member done what she did, they would have been court-martialed.
Gene363 Offline
#33 Posted: Thu, Aug 18 2016, 2:25 PM EST
Joined: 01-24-2003
Posts: 30,820
MACS wrote:
Ever serve in the military, Brewha? All military personnel who will, or may have, access to information that is deemed confidential (lowest) to top secret SCI (highest) has to sign a form stating they will not disclose any of that information to persons not authorized to receive it, and do everything within their power to protect it.

You can not believe that the Secretary of State did not have to read and sign something similar. And then you'd have to be a complete moron to believe she had NO idea that setting up a private server for such information could potentially compromise it.

Had a military member done what she did, they would have been court-martialed.



Brewha wrote:
La la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la.. I can't hear you and I don't want to hear you.



horse
DrafterX Offline
#34 Posted: Thu, Aug 18 2016, 2:30 PM EST
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 98,555
Laugh
Brewha Offline
#35 Posted: Thu, Aug 18 2016, 2:31 PM EST
Joined: 01-25-2010
Posts: 12,182
DrafterX wrote:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R2aaFsnqMUg

just sayin... Mellow

Gripping music. Why did they cut and splice so many of the questions/answers?

You really think this in unique and nothing like this happens with other officials - right?


Just for the recorded - You believe that she was sloppy and lied about it? Or something more dire?
DrafterX Offline
#36 Posted: Thu, Aug 18 2016, 2:33 PM EST
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 98,555
It was pretty obvious to Alot of people she intentionally lied and thoroughly expected everyone to believe her... So she keeps repeating the lies thinking sooner or later people will believe her... not gonna happen tho.. Not talking
dstieger Offline
#37 Posted: Thu, Aug 18 2016, 2:34 PM EST
Joined: 06-22-2007
Posts: 10,889
MACS wrote:
Ever serve in the military, Brewha? All military personnel who will, or may have, access to information that is deemed confidential (lowest) to top secret SCI (highest) has to sign a form stating they will not disclose any of that information to persons not authorized to receive it, and do everything within their power to protect it.

You can not believe that the Secretary of State did not have to read and sign something similar. ...



http://freebeacon.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/HRC-SCI-NDA1.pdf


No. I didn't Snopes it...yet.
DrafterX Offline
#38 Posted: Thu, Aug 18 2016, 2:36 PM EST
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 98,555
This is an even bigger cover-up than when Michelle Obama had all that sewer sludge dumped on the White house grounds so she could grow sweet potatoes... Not talking
Brewha Offline
#39 Posted: Thu, Aug 18 2016, 2:43 PM EST
Joined: 01-25-2010
Posts: 12,182
MACS wrote:
Ever serve in the military, Brewha? All military personnel who will, or may have, access to information that is deemed confidential (lowest) to top secret SCI (highest) has to sign a form stating they will not disclose any of that information to persons not authorized to receive it, and do everything within their power to protect it.

You can not believe that the Secretary of State did not have to read and sign something similar. And then you'd have to be a complete moron to believe she had NO idea that setting up a private server for such information could potentially compromise it.

Had a military member done what she did, they would have been court-martialed.

My Father, my Mother, and myself all worked for the DOD and are very familiar with security clearances and protocols. And I have been through the FBI interview process - have you?

The FBI found no wrong doing worth prosecuting her for. You are grasping at straws here - because that's all you got.



We spent millions and months and years going after Bill Clinton because of a BJ. The irony being that some of the biggest codsuckers in the GOP pushed for it - whining of indignation. Moral turpitude! How can he EVER BE TRUSTED???

And you guys call Hillary crooked...
DrafterX Offline
#40 Posted: Thu, Aug 18 2016, 2:44 PM EST
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 98,555
Ya.. Bill obviously was too.... Mellow
Brewha Offline
#41 Posted: Thu, Aug 18 2016, 2:49 PM EST
Joined: 01-25-2010
Posts: 12,182
DrafterX wrote:
This is an even bigger cover-up than when Michelle Obama had all that sewer sludge dumped on the White house grounds so she could grow sweet potatoes... Not talking

You are our true moral compass Drafter.......
DrafterX Offline
#42 Posted: Thu, Aug 18 2016, 2:51 PM EST
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 98,555
Thanks man.... Beer
MACS Offline
#43 Posted: Thu, Aug 18 2016, 2:52 PM EST
Joined: 02-26-2004
Posts: 79,791
Never applied for the FBI. I did have a secret clearance, though.

So then you are familiar with what I am talking about, and you're still okay with her getting gov't emails on a private server?

And if you watch the FBI director in Drafter's link, he consistently points out she is a liar. But hey... why should she be any different than her husband who committed perjury and got away with it?
teedubbya Offline
#44 Posted: Thu, Aug 18 2016, 2:53 PM EST
Joined: 08-14-2003
Posts: 95,637
MACS wrote:
Ever serve in the military, Brewha? All military personnel who will, or may have, access to information that is deemed confidential (lowest) to top secret SCI (highest) has to sign a form stating they will not disclose any of that information to persons not authorized to receive it, and do everything within their power to protect it.

You can not believe that the Secretary of State did not have to read and sign something similar. And then you'd have to be a complete moron to believe she had NO idea that setting up a private server for such information could potentially compromise it.

Had a military member done what she did, they would have been court-martialed.



I have agreed to and abide by similar. That said this has been thoroughly investigated and the decision to not take criminal or any other action was made by the appropriate folks. Not agreeing with their decision does not equal criminal. They are saying quite the opposite and their decision carries more weight than anyone in here. The shoulda argument is not possible to defend so it will linger... but the reality is didn't


It sort of reminds me of the anti immunization folks that say all the government or academic research is wrong and the only reliable source is a blog they like. You can't win that argument.
DrafterX Offline
#45 Posted: Thu, Aug 18 2016, 3:01 PM EST
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 98,555
Her mishandling of the e-mails and getting away it is a different issue than the open lies to congress and the public... Mellow
Brewha Offline
#46 Posted: Thu, Aug 18 2016, 3:02 PM EST
Joined: 01-25-2010
Posts: 12,182
MACS wrote:
Never applied for the FBI. I did have a secret clearance, though.

So then you are familiar with what I am talking about, and you're still okay with her getting gov't emails on a private server?

And if you watch the FBI director in Drafter's link, he consistently points out she is a liar. But hey... why should she be any different than her husband who committed perjury and got away with it?


She was failed to handle the data properly. This is not unique to her and happens with others at her level.

Positions lie. In the case of the interview, was she wrong about facts or willfully committing perjury? I have seen no perjury charges either.



But this only underscores the point:

Conservatives will grasp at any straw rather then debate real issues.
MACS Offline
#47 Posted: Thu, Aug 18 2016, 3:04 PM EST
Joined: 02-26-2004
Posts: 79,791
Brewha wrote:
She was failed to handle the data properly. This is not unique to her and happens with others at her level.

Positions lie. In the case of the interview, was she wrong about facts or willfully committing perjury? I have seen no perjury charges either.



But this only underscores the point:

Conservatives will grasp at any straw rather then debate real issues.


LOL Hello pot... my name is kettle!
teedubbya Offline
#48 Posted: Thu, Aug 18 2016, 3:06 PM EST
Joined: 08-14-2003
Posts: 95,637
DrafterX wrote:
Her mishandling of the e-mails and getting away it is a different issue than the open lies to congress and the public... Mellow



That is another issue and if it is criminal so be it. So far no one has made the case well enough to prosecute as hard as some try.

What she did was wrong, and I think its a political problem rather than a criminal one st this point.

The lock her up crowd misses the mark badly and it is wasted energy.
dstieger Offline
#49 Posted: Thu, Aug 18 2016, 3:07 PM EST
Joined: 06-22-2007
Posts: 10,889
Brewha wrote:

Conservatives will grasp at any straw rather then debate real issues.



I think there's a lot of 'noise' from all sides that has nothing to do with 'real issues'...so I sorta get your point.

But, for me, HRC's trustworthiness is a real issue. I do NOT trust that she set up a server for any reason other than to avoid FOIA. To me, THAT is a real issue....not totally distinct from the trustworthiness thing
DrafterX Offline
#50 Posted: Thu, Aug 18 2016, 3:11 PM EST
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 98,555
teedubbya wrote:
That is another issue and if it is criminal so be it. So far no one has made the case well enough to prosecute as hard as some try.

What she did was wrong, and I think its a political problem rather than a criminal one st this point.

The lock her up crowd misses the mark badly and it is wasted energy.



The defending of her cracks me up tho... I'll try to stop pushing buttons.. Unsure
Users browsing this topic
Guest
2 Pages12>
Back to Top