Trump lied during his campaign

You know that is a problem many Trump followers have, the assumption being you are a Trump fan. Else why question the critique of him. You make a bold statement, but you fail to explain the reasons or explanation for the statement. I, on the other hand, made a statement and then attempted to prove it.

Are you saying he did not have the support of blue collar workers and their spouses? Are you saying he did not have the support of those who favored strict immigration laws and their enforcement? Are you saying that members of the KKK did not cheer his victory? Just exactly what are you saying?

 

The better question is when did Hillary EVER tell the truth during the campaign????

 

Yes, I counted the total population of the U.S. Perhaps, that is spin, but I considered that young people have a voice, too. 47% of eligible voters did not vote, most, I suspect, out of disillusionment of the most vitriolic election in our history combined with the fact many didn't like either candidate. I didn't like either candidate. Sounds like you didn't either.

I am a Marine officer, retired, and many of my reservations about Trump on the international stage stemmed from that experience. He scared me before the election, and he scares me today. He has this to say about ISIS. "I would hit them so hard. I would find you a proper general, I would find the Patton or MacArthur. I would hit them so hard your head would spin." Does that mean Iraq war redux? Will we have to live through that again? I am a literal person. I take people at their word. Of course, that is the reason for my article, in the first place.

Your para beginning with "We are all different" was right on and you expressed yourself flawlessly.

I have no choice but to give the guy a chance. That said, I will be keeping my eye on him, and when I have something to say, I will say it.

Put another way, let's all hope I am wrong about him. I want to be. He's my President.

 

I am still trying to figure out how some got sidetracked into talking about Hillary. She is past tense. She is a just a private citizen. Does any of this Hillary talk matter anymore? This discussion concerns our President-elect and his behavior. This discussion should be about the present and the future, not the past. I should know. I started it.

 

Now that is an interesting question.

 

Hey, logical, this thread is not about Hillary. Your first clue is the title of the OP. The discussion concerns our President-elect, not a private citizen.

 

See what I mean? You tried to dodge the truth by floating yet another fabrication around. "See only what I want to see"? Lol! That's rich right there.

As to detailed English, if you understood such a thing, "detailed English" would have sent me the entire story. But "detailed English" did not. On purpose you left out the part where the emails had been sent with the wrong labels. Your dishonesty, not withstanding, has revealed itself for us all to see while conveniently leaving out the emails that were labeled wrong in your story.

 

Agreed. But his followers knew that he tended to shapeshift in front of everyone's eyes. He's done this all year long with evidence of same that precedes this election. Nothing phases them.

 

I see. However, you and your fellow critics of my article have avoided the "mythology" of Trump's cozy relationship with Moscow. This is the third time I have presented these facts. So far, no comment.

The election becomes even more troublesome when one realizes that Putin and Russia wanted Trump as President. Russian hackers broke into the DNC computers and revealed the dirty laundry with exquisite timing. They hacked into John Podesta's computer and presented the results to Wikileaks. Podesta was Clinton's campaign chairman. Wikileaks tormented Clinton during the last two months of the campaign. The Washington Post reports, "The flood of 'fake news' this election season got support from a sophisticated Russian propaganda campaign that created and spread misleading articles online with the goal of punishing Democrat Hillary Clinton, helping Republican Donald Trump and undermining faith in American democracy, say independent researchers who tracked the operation."

There is very little doubt that our greatest adversary -- and an aggressive one -- got their wish when Trump became the U.S. President. That is very unfortunate ... to say the least.

Does any Trump loyalist care to comment?

 

You attempted to prove it. Attempted. And failed. But take a look at your op and you said very different claims.

How can you demand an answer from me when you can't even face the actual claims you made?

Far more racist bigots supported hillary.

 

It's because there wasn't anything.

Ha, have you seen those 22 million missing emails from George Bush? Have the Republicans asked about those? These folks from the Right have been the joke of the century; http://www.newsweek.com/2016/09/23/george-w-bush-white-house-lost-22-million-emails-497373.html.

 

SIGH...


OK...since you apparently missed James Comey's statement in July, I'll let you read the underlying point in HIS words:


"Now let me tell you what we found:

Although we did not find clear evidence that Secretary Clinton or her colleagues intended to violate laws governing the handling of classified information, there is evidence that they were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information.

For example, seven e-mail chains concern matters that were classified at the Top Secret/Special Access Program level when they were sent and received.

These chains involved Secretary Clinton both sending e-mails about those matters and receiving e-mails from others about the same matters.

There is evidence to support a conclusion that any reasonable person in Secretary Clinton’s position, or in the position of those government employees with whom she was corresponding about these matters, should have known that an unclassified system was no place for that conversation.

In addition to this highly sensitive information, we also found information that was properly classified as Secret by the U.S. Intelligence Community at the time it was discussed on e-mail.

None of these e-mails should have been on any kind of unclassified system, but their presence is especially concerning because all of these e-mails were housed on unclassified personal servers not even supported by full-time security staff, like those found at Departments and Agencies of the U.S. Government—or even with a commercial service like Gmail.

Separately, it is important to say something about the marking of classified information. Only a very small number of the e-mails containing classified information bore markings indicating the presence of classified information. But even if information is not marked “classified” in an e-mail, participants who know or should know that the subject matter is classified are still obligated to protect it."


Now we're back in MY words...

I have worked a few Special Access Programs (SAPs) in my career because I have very specialized skills that allowed me to be selected, after INTENSE scrutiny, to be granted access to information that is of a scope SO HIGH that you cannot even fathom the gravity of the damage that would occur if such information were to be released - even if inadvertently released.

SAP information is SO HIGHLY CLASSIFIED that even the name of the actual program is classified at such a high level that members of Congress on an investigative committee CANNOT GET ACCESS!

SAP information is the very ultimate example of NEED TO KNOW ACCESS ONLY!

That information does NOT just happen to find its way onto an unclassified information system.

That kind of information has to be INTENTIONALLY AND ILLEGALLY revealed by someone ON THE PROGRAM...disseminated INTENTIONALLY AND ILLEGALLY to someone associated with Hillary Clinton...then it has to be INTENTIONALLY AND ILLEGALLY transmitted after being modified to conceal its seriously-high classification.

Someone took that information, re-typed it onto their unclassified email system, and sent it - ILLEGALLY - to Hillary Clinton's private email address on her UNSECURED and UNAUTHORIZED home server.

I am completely beside myself that you won't accept the seriousness of this!

You'll undoubtedly try to claim that since Director Comey said that he recommends no further action because he didn't find any obvious INTENT to violate the law that she's been fully cleared, right?

I can tell you before you even try - that claim is absolute BULL$#I+!!!

In case like this, INTENT OF DISCLOSURE IS NOT REQUIRED!

The very fact that it is on her system in the first place is a prosecutable offense!

That's a plain and simple fact that ANY experienced, reputable attorney can attest to.

I'm not making these things up! I lived this life! I don't think you understand that.

Unlike the Justice Department, which is FULL of political appointees who are subject to political influence from "above", the FBI has only ONE political appointee - THE DIRECTOR - in this case, that's James Comey!

If you think for one second that he wasn't "influenced" by higher-ups in announcing that decision in July, you are living in a fantasy world!

If you don't believe me...check into what the DOZENS of actual FBI Field Agents who worked this case have to say about Director Comey's decision.

To a person, they are absolutely LIVID!!! They know this situation has all the earmarks of a VERY prosecutable and winnable case!

Director Comey knows it as well.

He's looking out for his political skin...

...or maybe James Comey is understandably concerned about becoming the victim of what has come to be called "Arkancide".

Check into that, why don't you: http://arkancide.com/

But, of course....all those people are just coincidences - yet another "vast, right-wing conspiracy", right?

Seriously....come on!

Really.

 

She even lied about accepting the outcome of the election, here she is cavorting around with Stein as she recounts votes that will never change the election.

Hillary Clinton’s Team to Join Wisconsin Recount Pushed by Jill Stein

WASHINGTON — Nearly three weeks after Election Day, Hillary Clinton’s campaign said on Saturday that it would participate in a recount process in Wisconsin incited by a third-party candidate and would join any potential recounts in two other closely contested states, Pennsylvania and Michigan.


The Clinton campaign held out little hope of success in any of the three states, and said it had seen no “actionable evidence” of vote hacking that might taint the results or otherwise provide new grounds for challenging Donald J. Trump’s victory. But it suggested it was going along with the recount effort to assure supporters that it was doing everything possible to verify that hacking by Russia or other irregularities had not affected the results.

 

Those 22 million emails were found. So you are left holding nothing at all.

Found! 22 million White House e-mails that went missing during the Bush administration

 

Well, it phases me. I can't picture my President acting like a spoiled, vindictive child. As President, is he going to lash out at everything and everyone he disagrees with?

There could be a silver lining in all this. Assuming he stays busy tweeting about everything he doesn't like, that means more experienced and savvy people will be making the decisions he will only rubber-stamp.

 

You really have no idea what you are talking about. Now you are making the claim I don't know what I wrote in my OP. That is outrageously funny, and you still can't explain your original post.

 

Race-agitator Barack Obama had to invent the world's first ever Beer Summit because he shot off his mouth. Race-Agitator Barack Obama rather than calm citizens remarked, "If I had a son he would look like Trayvon Martin." Race-agitator Barack Obama bought into -- without examination -- the leftist meme of Gentle Giant Michael Brown and the notion of "Hands up! Don't shoot!"

Yes it has been bad for the last eight years.

 

Because your claims have been addressed time and time again. You can't possibly have missed it.

KKK is like...a few thousand of the populace of like 300 million. Some also like Hillary.

BLM like Hillary, and they are just as bad as KKK.

Racist, xenophobic, Islamophobia, etc are all just as much into Hillary and the Democrats as they are trump.

No, you have no idea what you are talking about.

 

Have you paid attention to his cabinet choices? They are not so much 'savvy' as they are rabid.

 

Apparently, you go by the theory that two wrongs make a right. If Obama screwed up because he was a novice to politics, it is perfectly okay for Trump as an novice to make a complete fool of himself. Incidentally, that was one of the main reasons many thought Trump is not prepared for the Presidency -- his complete inexperience in politics. He has not even taken office yet and it is becoming a problem with many Americans shaking their heads in frustration over his antics. His staff once again is forced to apologize for his behavior.

Trump followed his incomprehensible tweets Sunday with an exasperating tweet today. Prompted by students at an obscure college, Hampshire College in Massachusetts who burned a flag on Nov. 10, Trump tweeted, "Nobody should be allowed to burn the American flag - if they do, there must be consequences - perhaps loss of citizenship or year in jail!." There are only two things wrong with that statement. There is no procedure in our country for denying citizenship, and the burning of a flag was ruled a form of free speech by the Supreme Court. BTW, the conservative protagonist, the late Justice Antonin Scalia, sided with the protesters. He later said he based his ruling on a “textual” reading of the Constitution.

McConnell disagreed sharply with Trump's tweet when asked about it during a press availability on Tuesday. "The Supreme Court has held that that activity is a protected First Amendment right, a form of unpleasant speech, and in this country we have a long tradition of respecting unpleasant speech. I happen to support the Supreme Court's decision on that matter," McConnell said.

Politico reports, "Jason Miller, Trump's senior communications adviser, struggled to defend the president-elect's post in an interview on CNN's "New Day" just minutes after the tweet appeared online. He refused to concede that flag burning is constitutionally protected speech, insisting that it should be illegal even as he tried in vain to pivot to the announcement of Rep. Tom Price (R-Ga.) as Trump's pick to be secretary of health and human services."

Will this continue throughout his Presidency or will Trump grow up? Is he going to lash out at every little thing that annoys him?

 

Yes, perhaps I misspoke. As I said, I was searching for a silver lining. I got carried away.

 

I guess President Lyndon Johnson was also guilty of antics. He signed the actual no burning the US flag law in 1968. I think he was rather proud he signed the law. It called for prison of a year.

You know, we have have over 8 years of the Obama mouth. Seemed to me he got more TV time than our local news anchors. I got sick of him on TV daily years ago. If we have this from Trump, his welcome mat can be yanked.

Again, it was Johnson the Democrat that caused the SC to get into this at all.

 

Usually we hear from Democrats that the burning of the US flag is free speech. Speech does not have to be translated.

When a man tells you, stop or you will be shot, who needs that translated? That is really speech.

Ashes of the flag is not speech. Fire is not speech.

My aim is private property be respected and protected under law. If you burn your flag, it means nothing to me. So long as where you burn it is proper for burning things like that. If you bring it inside my home, then it is not proper. If you take it into a store, you did wrong. As to the city street, that depends on local laws so far as i know.

 

Thank you for finally explaining yourself. That took some effort on my part.

I am not thrilled with the BLM, but that is beside the point. What is the point is that Trump's rhetoric attracted the likes of the KKK and white nationalists like the alt-right. Bannon, Trump's senior advisor, was a spokesman for the alt-right movement when he was at Breitbart. I am rather certain that the KKK is not a friend of Hillary's. I am rather certain you just made that up. Lying seems to be a common practice with Trump and his followers.

In that respect, I did not use the terms, racist and xenophobic. I did say a part of Trump's following are those afflicted with Islamophobia. Once this is reflected in Trump's rhetoric when he said, "I would bomb the (*)(*)(*)(*) out of them [ISIS]. I would just bomb those suckers, and that's right, I'd blow up the pipes, I'd blow up the refineries, I'd blow up ever single inch, there would be nothing left." In addition, first he said he would not allow any Muslims into this country from nations like Syria and Iraq. Then he changed his mind again and said they would be subjected to "deep vetting," which means virtually the same thing. We are talking about starving, innocent, homeless men, women, and children here, not Islamic terrorists. If that is not Islamophobia, I don't know what is.

I believe I know a little bit of what I am talking about.

Why did you use the term, racist? Is it possible "if the shoe fits" scenario applies?

 

My post had very little to do with Johnson or Obama. Apparently, you can't take issue with anything in the post. You thought it time to change the subject. That seems to be a common practice with Trump fans on this thread. This thread is about Trump. His inexcusable actions are so real, Trump's fans change the subject to Hillary, Obama, or Johnson, anybody but Trump.