Originally Posted by Sea Dangles (Post 1185760)

Thanks for sharing Bitchslapped boy.👍🏿
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Originally Posted by Pete F. (Post 1185758)

WH Press Sec Stephanie Grisham previews the President's 12pm ET impeachment remarks:

"I think he's also going to talk about just how horribly he was treated and, you know, that maybe people should pay for that."

So immediately following the National Prayer Breakfast, he's planning a public display of Heads On A Pike.

At the National Prayer breakfast, Floridaman calls those who impeached him “very dishonest and corrupt people.”

That’s the President of the United States.

The guy with his own lawyer and campaign chairman in prison.

At a prayer breakfast!

Originally Posted by detbuch (Post 1185766)

You sure do know how to put a positive spin on something.

Originally Posted by Pete F. (Post 1185767)

Let me know when Pelosi sexually assaults someone, mocks the disabled, tears a child from their parents, pays off a porn star, insults a gold star family, calls nazis fine people, denies science, steals from a charity, or starts a fake university. Until then, take a seat.

Originally Posted by detbuch (Post 1185769)

You sure do know how to put a positive spin on something.

Originally Posted by Pete F. (Post 1185767)

Let me know when Pelosi sexually assaults someone,

Pelosi assaults the truth most of the time when she politically opens her mouth. As for sexual assaults, try Clinton who set the standard for doing it while being President, and being pretty violent about it in past escapades. It seems that our Presidents' sexual misconduct wasn't an important enough issue to expose or discuss until Clinton, and even that wasn't important enough to disqualify him from being President, a much admired one. Trump's "assaults" were mild compared to Clinton. And didn't occur while he was President.

mocks the disabled,

That's disputed.

tears a child from their parents,

Ahh . . . there's your ability to put a really positive spin on something.

pays off a porn star,

Probably wasn't worth it. Hey, Congress has a fund for paying off sexual claims against Congress folks. Apparently, the fund has been tapped many times for millions of dollars. So it's OK for Congress to hush up and pay for those many claims, but Trump is a bad guy for paying it out of his own funds.

insults a gold star family,

The "gold star" family insulted the President.

calls nazis fine people,

He never did that. That's not even pure spin. It's a blatant lie.

denies science,

He doesn't deny science. He sides with those, including scientists, who disagree on the causes and solutions for climate change. Saying that he denies science is pure spin.

steals from a charity, or starts a fake university. Until then, take a seat.

Originally Posted by Pete F. (Post 1185770)

There is always more Trump filth. There is always another shoe to drop. And Mitch McConnell forced the GOP into the coverup.

Originally Posted by detbuch (Post 1185773)

It is not alleged that he "stole" (nice spin) money from the charity. It is alleged that he, as Snopes put it "engaged in practices that could be regarded as self-dealing, rather than theft or embezzlement." That case is still pending, and remains an allegation.
No, it is not. Mr. Trump, who at first dismissed the suit as a political attack, made 19 detailed admissions, acknowledging, for example, that the foundation had purchased the $10,000 portrait of himself that was ultimately displayed at one of his Florida hotels.

He admitted to using the foundation’s money to settle obligations of some of his for-profit companies, including a golf club in Westchester County, N.Y., and Mar-a-Lago, his private club in Florida which he frequently visits.

And he admitted that the foundation had given his presidential campaign control over about $2.8 million that the foundation had raised at a veterans fund-raiser in Iowa in January 2016. Mr. Trump acknowledged the fund-raiser was in fact a campaign event.

The Trump Foundation, which Mr. Trump founded in 1987, disbanded last December after an investigation by Barbara Underwood, then-acting attorney general of New York. Ms. Underwood’s office found “unlawful coordination with the Trump presidential campaign, repeated and willful self-dealing, and much more.”

The "fake university" was indeed, apparently, a stinker. But he did settle.

Originally Posted by Pete F. (Post 1185782)

Just keep believing

steals from a charity,

I agree, the "willful self-dealing" in shifting some of the funds from his charity to his personal business was pretty crappy behavior. I objected to your use of the word "steals" as spin rather than accuracy. But, I admit, it's not that far off the mark.

And Pam Bondi ends up on his impeachment defense team, after getting a 25K "contribution" she settles the fake university case, given his typical definition and actions vis-a-vis friends and enemies, it apparently was very good for him in his mind.

OK. Big deal. Is this supposed to be unusual? Did she not qualify to be on his defense team. She did a good job. Good choice.

Originally Posted by detbuch Pelosi assaults the truth most of the time when she politically opens her mouth. As for sexual assaults, try Clinton who set the standard for doing it while being President, and being pretty violent about it in past escapades. It seems that our Presidents' sexual misconduct wasn't an important enough issue to expose or discuss until Clinton, and even that wasn't important enough to disqualify him from being President, a much admired one. Trump's "assaults" were mild compared to Clinton. And didn't occur while he was President.

So that's conjecture with a But Clinton

Yeah, it was conjecture, but I don't claim it is an impeachable offense.

Not BUT Clinton (and the past Presidents I alluded to), it's BUT context. Trump compared to what or who. And precedent as a means to evaluate Trump's behavior. All of which makes Trump's pre election sexual behavior a not-so-much, nor important enough to say he is not fit for office.

mocks the disabled,

Originally Posted by detbuch That's disputed.
Dispute this
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uNXgjnBpxGI

It's been disputed that Trump was mimicking disabled gestures, rather, he was imitating a flustered response with its exaggerated flailing of hands. Which it does resemble to me. It doesn't look like a disabled response.

tears a child from their parents,

Originally Posted by detbuch Ahh . . . there's your ability to put a really positive spin on something.

No spin there

THE FACTS: Obama did not have a separation policy. The Trump administration didn't, explicitly, either, but that was the effect of zero tolerance, which meant that anyone caught crossing the border illegally was to be criminally prosecuted, even if they had few or no previous offences.

The policy meant adults were taken to court for criminal proceedings and their children were separated. In most cases, if the charge took longer than 72 hours to process, which is the longest time that children can be held by Customs and Border Protection, children were sent into the care of the Health and Human Services Department. Zero tolerance remains in effect, but Trump signed an executive order June 20 that stopped separations.

I don't see the "tearing" of children from parents in your FACTS. I see the word separation--sent into the CARE of the Health and Human Services Department. "tears a child from their parents is a negative frame--a spin.

pays off a porn star,

Originally Posted by detbuch Probably wasn't worth it. Hey, Congress has a fund for paying off sexual claims against Congress folks. Apparently, the fund has been tapped many times for millions of dollars. So it's OK for Congress to hush up and pay for those many claims, but Trump is a bad guy for paying it out of his own funds.

Is that a But Congress?

Nope. It is ACTUAL Congress. Putting Trump in context. Trump compared to whom. As far as his position in the federal government goes , he is not some unfit outlier in this regard--but I understand your need to spin that he is

insults a gold star family,

Originally Posted by detbuch The "gold star" family insulted the President. because obviously his great sacrifices are equal to the loss of their son
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xJXex65RzD0

In a statement to ABC News, Gold Star father Khizr Khan and his wife, Gazala Khan, said they were saddened by Trump's "selfish and divisive" actions and his lack of empathy, which they believe have undermined the dignity of the office of the presidency.

"One more time, he has shown us that he is undeserving of the leadership of our great nation," the statement read.

I can see how Trump could take this as an insult. Of course, it would have been better if Trump faked it and took the high road by apologizing for what he may have done to hurt the Khans. But, unfortunately, Trump is not as thoroughly dishonest as you need to make him out to be.


calls nazis fine people,

Originally Posted by detbuch He never did that. That's not even pure spin. It's a blatant lie.
Better tell these guys
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1o6-bi3jlxk&t=3s

The speech that Trump made included specifically (a bit after the "good people on both sides" part) that he was not referring to the Nazis.

So, instead of what Trump actually said, you have to post a video of someone else talking. This is worse than spin. It is a total fraud. Trump never said Nazis are good people. He has said on several occasions, the opposite. I think, by now, you would know this. But I see how your lie fits your narrative and the truth doesn't. So you have to keep repeating that he said Nazis are good people.

denies science,

Originally Posted by detbuch He doesn't deny science. He sides with those, including scientists, who disagree on the causes and solutions for climate change. Saying that he denies science is pure spin.
He claims it's a chinese plot
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=szHhWhZZzTs

Originally Posted by detbuch (Post 1185785)

Originally Posted by Pete F. (Post 1185804)

Don't worry Floridaman is far worse than that

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cUXYorzR6b8

Originally Posted by detbuch (Post 1185824)

Since you couldn't back up your lie that Trump said Nazis are fine people, you posted a video of white nationalist Richard Spencer. I don't know if that was somehow supposed to prove Trump said that Nazis are fine people, but all that I got out of it is that Spencer thought so, or something like that.
Just why does he like Floridaman?

Then you couldn't show that Trump actually denied science, so you posted a video that was supposed to show that Trump believed climate change was a Chinese plot. But when I pointed out the video was not about such a plot, you now divert into something else which is over an hour of conjecture about Trump being a useful idiot for Putin. I suffered through it and recognize his ability to craft a plausible narrative of what might be, similar to the narratives that led to the Mueller investigation, but nothing came from that.
Obstruction combined with a willing AG got him there. Who has now said that any investigation of presidential candidates has to be cleared by himself.

I shudder to think of what I may have to read or watch if you respond to this.

Originally Posted by Pete F. (Post 1185829)

Originally Posted by detbuch
Since you couldn't back up your lie that Trump said Nazis are fine people, you posted a video of white nationalist Richard Spencer. I don't know if that was somehow supposed to prove Trump said that Nazis are fine people, but all that I got out of it is that Spencer thought so, or something like that.

Just why does he like Floridaman?

This is what you do. You suggest rather than prove. You ask a suggestive question--implying, by asking, that the answer is "just" (only) that Trump thinks Nazis are fine people.

That is a stupid suggestion. There is no, one reason for Spencer's likes or dislikes. And it really doesn't matter, in terms of what Trump did or didn't say. If Spencer likes Trump, that does not mean, ergo, that Trump likes him or thinks he is a fine person--although you try your sneaky darnedest to suggest that it must be so.

The fact is, regardless of what you imply, suggest, conjecture, lie, Trump did not say that Nazis are fine people. He has said the opposite. And it is not a fine thing you do by repeating the lie that he said Nazis are fine people.

Then you couldn't show that Trump actually denied science, so you posted a video that was supposed to show that Trump believed climate change was a Chinese plot. But when I pointed out the video was not about such a plot, you now divert into something else which is over an hour of conjecture about Trump being a useful idiot for Putin. I suffered through it and recognize his ability to craft a plausible narrative of what might be, similar to the narratives that led to the Mueller investigation, but nothing came from that.

I shudder to think of what I may have to read or watch if you respond to this.


Obstruction combined with a willing AG got him there. Who has now said that any investigation of presidential candidates has to be cleared by himself.

ust think how confusing it is to keep up with Floridaman's big lies.

I understand that it does confuse you.

Just yesterday Floridaman said "Had I not fired James Comey, it’s possible I wouldn’t even be standing here right now"

That doesn't confuse me.

But he never obstructs anything.

Who said he never obstructs anything? There are times when wrong must be "obstructed."

Obstruction, in law, must meet legal standards. It was not illegal for Trump to fire Comey. Further, if that firing prevented Comey from somehow obstructing Trump, the firing was not only not an illegal "obstruction" of Justice, it was an obstruction of injustice.

Here, again, you are trying to paint a picture by suggestion.

Throughout his campaign, while he lied and said he had nothing in Russia, he was pursuing deals with Russia.

He might well have been lying. Depends on what he meant by having "nothing."

Putin knows far more about Floridaman and his finances than the American people.