EXTRY! EXTRY! IMPEACHMENT IMMINENT!

Is he attacking man's or woman's family...no...enough said. Where as, a certain person thought it was OK to attack a woman's family at the airport because she supported her father. LOser or troll behavior that needs to admonished and corrected. The E, go back to your corner and take another 15 minute timeout. So The E when are you going to become a Muslim. Still praying in Texas for you!

The E wrote:

cthia wrote:Jared and Ivanka should never have been allowed in the WH and should be dismissed effective immediately.

Hey, smr, when are you going to roast cthia over his disrespecting your chosen crown princess?

SMR,

Please stop praying to Satan in Texas. It is ineffective. Try praying instead to Christ. Following Christ would require a complete change of politics, but he can forgive a lot more than Satan does. Christ teaches two over arching commandments: to love god and to love the fellow man as yourself. You completely fail on the second, and thus fail on the first as well. If you insist on praying, pray to the right guy.

LOL...I always pray to God. Jesus Christ is my savior. Personally I'm not going to allow God given rights to be subverted by the Godless or by darknes (evil). "All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing" Just remember to do one good deed a day for stranger and the world will be a better place. Have you done your good deed for the day?

ksandgren wrote:SMR,

Please stop praying to Satan in Texas. It is ineffective. Try praying instead to Christ. Following Christ would require a complete change of politics, but he can forgive a lot more than Satan does. Christ teaches two over arching commandments: to love god and to love the fellow man as yourself. You completely fail on the second, and thus fail on the first as well. If you insist on praying, pray to the right guy.

It is interesting to see how cultures differ, that seem similar on first perusal. Public affirmations of faith just don't happen here in Australia. Possibly because most of us don't have any.

smr wrote:Where as, a certain person thought it was OK to attack a woman's family at the airport because she supported her father.

Please quote the post where I said that.

But then, it's not like you're an actual "find evidence" kind of guy, is it? That little echo chamber you're in is just too comfortable to ever leave it, after all.....

You asked and I answered your question. Now go find the converstion yourself. Their are certain cardinal rules of life like not attacking a man's family or attacking a woman in front of her children that person should never violate a rule of life. The fact that a person was probably trying to get my goat and ellict a negative response from me. Well you got a respone. Now back to the corner your still in a 15 timeout! Still praying for you in Texas.

The E wrote:

smr wrote:Where as, a certain person thought it was OK to attack a woman's family at the airport because she supported her father.

Please quote the post where I said that.

But then, it's not like you're an actual "find evidence" kind of guy, is it? That little echo chamber you're in is just too comfortable to ever leave it, after all.....

smr wrote:You asked and I answered your question. Now go find the converstion yourself.

You have made this assertion about a single post I made a cornerstone of your assessment of me and my opinions. I have asked you several times to actually look it up again, repost it even, and you have consistently refused to do so.

Here, I'll do you a favour. This is what I actually said (or at least I think it's the post you're referring to; I am of course not actually sure given how little resemblance your ranting about me has to anything I have ever actually said):

The E wrote:Yes, she should be punished for willingly associating with and enabling a massive idiot in the White House. She may be less insane than Trump himself (she may, in fact, be a mostly rational human being), but the fact of the matter is that she's still doing her best to make her father look good (or at least acceptable).

Basically, if you willingly and publically associate yourself with the most amoral and incompetent person to ever sit in the oval office, you should be criticized.
If you're also seen as using your personal association with said person to gain a business benefit, well, guess what. It's punishment time.

This has nothing to do with her being tarred with the same brush as her father. This has all to do with her not talking him out of this whole bullshit.

Ivanka Trump, the person in question, is an adult woman. So are Jared Kushner and Donald Jr. It should be possible to criticize adults for what they do, no matter who their parents are (You will note, or you would if you were actually interested in facts and not your cute little fantasies, that I never "attacked" people like Barron Trump).

smr, I once asked you (and you, of course, never answered), when it becomes okay to criticize someone for what they do out of their own volition. In this case, we have Ivanka Trump, cheerfully supporting her father (who, we must assume, she knows better than most other people would) in his bid for the presidency. If we on the outside can see that Trump is unsuited for the job, she should be able to as well; If she can't, she's perhaps less perceptive than what she presents herself as, or willingly going along with it.
Either way, she is complicit in this whole mess; She willingly chose to promote her father and his causes and is still doing so today.
I do not see how her relationship to the Donald makes her sacrosanct. Please explain this to me, smr.

Their are certain cardinal rules of life like not attacking a man's family or attacking a woman in front of her children that person should never violate a rule of life.

If it was about attacking Trump's family because they are Trump's family, I might even agree with you. Everyone is only responsible for what they themselves are doing; being related to someone doesn't or shouldn't mean that their reputation should rub off on you automatically.
But, when you are Ivanka Trump and are engaging in acts that can easily be interpreted as blatant profiteering (back when we were discussing this, she just used the Trump campaign platform to advertise her jewellery brand), then at least as far as I am concerned, you are free game for criticism. If you consistently position yourself as "the moderating influence" on your father, then you are implicitly associating yourself with what he ends up doing; the question of where that influence was or what it led to comes easily.

I am fairly certain that, whenever I have criticized members of Trump's family, it was always about something they, personally, did. Not just because they are related to the orange one.

The fact that a person was probably trying to get my goat and ellict a negative response from me. Well you got a respone. Now back to the corner your still in a 15 timeout! Still praying for you in Texas.

If you feel like I am violating board guidelines, there are ways and means by which that can and should be addressed. Telling me "back to the corner" doesn't do anything. It's just impotent posturing. So if you want me to change my ways, you need to get up to my level and address things I have done or am actually doing, not the fantasies you deal in all the time.

So, Sam Nunberg, an ex Trump campaign aide, just gave a bunch of interviews to national media outlets stating his intention to tear up a Grand Jury subpoena Mueller issued him to produce his e-mails from the campaign, and refuse to comply with it.

Because?

Gathering all those e-mails would be too much work. No seriously. That was his claimed excuse.


I predict if he carries through on that stated intention we will see Sam Nunberg being hauled off to prison shortly thereafter... and then he can evaluate which is the greater inconvenience to be subjected to, a jail cell, or the search function on his e-mail.

gcomeau wrote:So, Sam Nunberg, an ex Trump campaign aide, just gave a bunch of interviews to national media outlets stating his intention to tear up a Grand Jury subpoena Mueller issued him to produce his e-mails from the campaign, and refuse to comply with it.

Because?

Gathering all those e-mails would be too much work. No seriously. That was his claimed excuse.


I predict if he carries through on that stated intention we will see Sam Nunberg being hauled off to prison shortly thereafter... and then he can evaluate which is the greater inconvenience to be subjected to, a jail cell, or the search function on his e-mail.

This three ring circus has ceased to be amusing to me. I think he somewhat recanted on the whole refuse to show up thing. I know that without help from Google and Yahoo, there is no way i could turn over even one email. Yhey're just not worth keeping. Even the work ones. Of course I know that even as I tell my account to delete them The ISPs are saving them for their data mining value. So data is always created but never destroyed?

Well, this individual just got back from the family financial advisor's office. Last year, I made just slightly less than 25% on my Roth IRA and mutural funds. (24.86%) If I am a typical investor that has made between 15% to 25%. Well, I guess that means Trump is getting reelected. People vote with their checkbooks. I chose the lessor of 2 evils and now I thankful for voting for Trump. Here'e to Trump and may he be reelected in 2020. I think impeach Trump and collusion is going nowhere. The average voter is now behind Trump and I don't believe their going to abandon him anytime soon.