Trump is not a well man

Really? What news stories has she broken or "dots" has she connected? She needs a specific story to be nominated right? We're not talking about that tax return nonsense are we?

 

Define "blatantly untruthful statements" made by me.

When you say something silly like Republicans who are reacting to Trump's foolish attacks joining with Hillary, you can expect to be called on it. Besides, I can't read your mind. Your statement didn't sound at all like you were agreeing with me. It sounded like you were blaming Republicans because Trump was critical of them. I told you your statement was silly.

The last thing I want to do is shut down conversation. I wanted you to react, and you did.

Actually, I like the comments Trump is making. Nearly every day Trump helps me make my case against him. Part of that case is, he is not healthy ... from a mental standpoint. Read those tweets in the OP again. Would a healthy man write those? Why does he attack his own party publicly? Why does he think China is on our side? That doesn't make sense. Those are not the words of a well man.

"Furthermore you go on to tell someone you have never heard anyone call Trump "sick" which is obviously completely untrue." I did not say that. I did say I get my news from Fox, and conservative pundits on Fox were highly critical of him. As I said, Trump is isolating himself. He is losing his own party, and he is losing conservative writers and commentators.

You sure you agree with me on much of what I say? It sure doesn't sound like it.

 

It's not like anyone is claiming our entire electoral system is rigged or that our judicial branch puts the nation in peril. Oh wait, your boy did say that.

 

This is what I am talking about, I said "Now you sound like Republicans with Hillary" as they over and over said "Hillary is unwell!" because she would say something they didn't like, stutter, look off into the distance, or almost fell over going into the car. I was fairly clearly blaming Liberals like yourself for trying the same tactic. Then you go into a swirling long winded ideology on what you think I am talking about.

And I def do not agree with your original post, where I saw most of the "blatantly untruth's ...", but I do specifically agreed with a lot of what you wrote in that response post before you basically called me a moron in such a tactful way.

But your initial OP states half a dozen times where he did something you don't like to which you replied, "He is sick (actually ill)" That is "blatantly untruthful" and similar to what Rep's did to Hillary. Which was my original "moronic statement" according to you

You go off about the news and who you watch, what your party is and even stating they would break a (nuke rule) 170 year tradition by doing so. Harry Reid would like a word....

All these things are blatantly untrue

 

While I definitely do believe it's too early to begin that line of thinking, historically speaking, it's within the realm of possibility. No country is immune from a coup, or revolution. It just takes the right set of circumstances to be in place. Just look at how the Berlin Wall fell and how that triggered the collapse of the Soviet Union.

Like I said, we aren't there yet....but we are sitting on a tinder box. Just one serious existential threat and a stupid tweet from Trump can easily set it off. It is naive to think it can't happen here.

 

Absolutely! To me, the more challenges to my ideas, the better. So long as they are well documented, though. That's why I bring them here, for example. To see if somebody has also researched it and found something I didn't. And it has happened in the past. But not that often because I do try to be very thorough.

One thing I have learned when trying to verify my ideas, is that "shooting the messenger" doesn't work. The documentary shows one or several Fox anchors saying something, then they document the facts, and compare the two. Here, for example, you attack the source, and not the content. That is so typical on the right. Not as much on the left.

So, to you, presenting a video of Trump saying that the reason why he fired Comey was the Russia investigation, is not being objective?

No wonder you don't want anybody who challenges your ideas.

 

'Well documented' is a matter of opinion. We see the MSM constantly using 'well documented anonymous sources' all the time.

Lots of anchors at every new outlet 'say something' all the time.

"Another day, more fraudulently incorrect misinformation from CNN—the network President Donald J. Trump calls “very fake news.” Now, CNN has demonstrated its anchors are literally willing to push fraudulently untruthful information on air–and are refusing to do anything to hold the purveyors of its latest very fake news accountable."

http://www.breitbart.com/big-govern...ave-approved-hillary-backed-uranium-one-deal/

Remember your own advice now...don't shoot the messenger.

Maybe partly but, I believe your assessment of the firing is probably wrong. Remember Comey totally screwed up the Hillary investigation too. Also Comey is a long-time Clinton supporter who helped her out of the White Water debacle.

 

I'm not the MSM. And once again you try to attack the sources, but not the argument.

Lots of anchors at every new outlet 'say something' all the time.

"Another day, more fraudulently incorrect misinformation from CNN—the network President Donald J. Trump calls “very fake news.” Now, CNN has demonstrated its anchors are literally willing to push fraudulently untruthful information on air–and are refusing to do anything to hold the purveyors of its latest very fake news accountable."

Oh... that's hilarious. You bring an article from Breitbart in which they do exactly that: i.e., attack the source and not the argument...

They attack CNN for saying that Trump would have approved it, and the only research they present to hold this is that they "asked" a "source" in the White House, and that source said that Trump would never approve it. That's ridiculous... I mean... I understand that a "whistle-blower"would be kept anonymous... but why keep a Trump staffer who is saying exactly what Trump wants to hear anonymous?

And that's all the argument they have.... But do you really believe that Trump wouldn't have approved it. If this hadn't been an issue mentioned over and over in the campaign, and Tillerson told Trump it was Ok... do you really really believe that he wouldn't have approved it? Be honest.

BTW, I don't debate with Breitbart. I responded this time just to illustrate. But I am debating you. If you have an argument, you present it, and I comment on your position. It's ok to use Breitbart or whatever source you want if they provide facts that support your argument. But I prefer debating somebody who can answer back.

"My" assessment? Oh... come on...he said it!!!! And has never retracted.

No arguments for saying that Comey is a Clinton supporter, and yet you acknowledge that he screwed up her chances of becoming President. Quite contradictory.

 

First of all, you say don't shoot the messenger but, when the messenger is not to your liking what do you do? Lock, load and fire!! Alisyn Camerota was making false statements how about you actually read my link?

So...in your opinion, why did Trump fire Comey? Hint: 'Russia' is an incorrect answer.

I never acknowledged anything. The fact that Hillary screwed herself somehow escapes you.

 

There are 15 lawyers on Mueller's staff. Seven contributed to the DNC. Eight did not. That seems pretty balanced to me.

Trump ragged on Sessions all last week, calling him weak and beleaguered. Furthermore, Trump said he was unhappy with him and disappointed that Sessions wasn't going after Hillary.

"He has no reason to fire Sessions." I fully agree, but Trump doesn't. He still wants Sessions to resign.

 

He's just a man dealing with the American treasonous left.

 

One of these times, try listening to Trump and less what you read.

 

Too bad Democrats don't have to follow the appraisers code of ethics or the code of ethics followed by Realtors.

 

Before I allow you to get away, we all know Muller focused first on hiring Hillary's supporters. As to your claim of eight not donating to Hillary, sadly you forgot to give a bit of proof. Nor where you get your information.

 

Yes, the fanatical right may even turn its back on Faux News, which has propped up Donnie for six months. These people need their own TV network for the Lunatic Fringe....appealing to the worst sorts of people: Nazis, white supremacists, the ignorant and insane.

 

The White House Circus continues its show this week. Now Trump has dismissed Anthony Scaramucci. He lasted eleven days.

Spicer was loyal to a fault. On July 21st, he's gone.

Preibus was a loyal soldier for Trump, always supporting the President even when Trump made that impossible with his contradictory and mindless statements and position changes that often occurred on the same day. On July 28th, he's gone.

Trump knew the White House was in chaos and leaking like a sieve. He personally hired Scaramucci to make changes. Mooch made changes and thought he was doing the right thing by the President. He said he loved Trump and he, too, was extremely loyal to the President. On July 31st, he's gone.

Trump fired Corey Lewandowski as his campaign manager. Trump fired Paul Manafort as his campaign manager. As President, Trump has fired Sally Yates, acting attorney general. Trump fired Mike Flynn as his NSA. Trump fired Katie Walsh, assistant to Reince Priebus. Trump fired James Comey as FBI director. White House communications director Mike Dubke quit after three months on the job. The director of the Office of Government Ethics, Walter Shaub, quit. Mark Corallo, spokesman for the legal team defending Trump on the Russia investigation, quit. Lead attorney Marc Kasowitz quit his position.

Then came Spicer, Priebus, and Scaramucci.

It seems being loyal to Trump is the kiss of death.

 

Well, they certainly do not promote the Public Trust.

 

Heh, I've been hearing virtually nothing since November except our elections were hacked. It's all conspiracy theory, all the time.

 

No country is immune from a coup I suppose, but your side has been actively agitating for one. I don't think you have any idea what you're asking for.

 

The same sort of network that Trump was planning on starting if he lost.

 

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...-to-hillary-now-investigating-team-trump.html

 

How the hell you figure to place the blame on the left?

The right has for decades now appealed to evangelicals who dream of nothing but an apocalypse. By some accounts, almost a 1/3 of Republicans identify as evangelical Christians. It is their influence which motivates the pro-Israeli policies of the GOP because of their ingrained belief in apocalyptic thought.

81% of evangelicals voted for Trump!

The right has thrown a human Molotov Cocktail at Washington DC, and we're all going to get burned. Wake up and smell the napalm!

 

First of all, what I am saying is that should not shoot the messenger instead of referring to the argument. I don't care if you attack the media itself, so long as it's not the only thing you respond.

But I'm not even doing that. I'm attacking contents of the article. Because you are having me debate with the article, instead of you yourself laying out the case. There is a reason why that is not permitted, according to the rulse of this forum. And the reason is that the author of the article is not here.

I know perfectly well what the accusation is. They are claiming that CNN made false statements. But there are no arguments to support that accusation. The only support was that they asked an anonymous staffer. And that would be ok if it were some whistle-blower. But it's not. I doubt very much that they asked anybody. But it's the only argument there is. No others. Show me some other argument and I'll be glad to comment.

My opinion is irrelevant given that Trump publicly stated why he fired Comey. Only opinion I can give is that, unusuarl as this might be, I don't think he was lying this time.

What completely escapes me is what it is you're trying to say. First you said Comey screwed up Hillary, now Hillary screwed herself....

And still no evidence that Comey supported Hillary. So I don't even see how any of this is even relevant.

 

I think you've gone off the rails if you think evangelicals having anything to do with calling for a coup to overthrow Trump. Some allegedly serious people have been saying it...

Former CIA Director Calls For A Coup If Trump Fires Mueller

Obama Pentagon official says anti-Trump military coup now possible

and some unserious ones...

Sarah Silverman calls for a military coup to overthrow President Trump


Get outta here with your evangelical nonsense.