Assholes's Speech

[Cap'n Crunch]

Originally Posted by Milly23

I mean even Trump admitted he had conflicts when talking about Turkey
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KSvfbc-YokY

Trump??? Conflict of Interest??? His Supporters Turn a Blind Eye???



President Trump Said in 2015 That He Has a 'Little Conflict of Interest' in Turkey

President Trump said that he has a "conflict of interest" in Turkey because of a development there in a 2015 interview.
The interview was resurfaced by Mother Jones after Trump faced criticism for congratulating Turkey's president Tayyip Erdogan on winning a referendum that increases his power.
"I have a little conflict of interest 'cause I have a major, major building in Istanbul," Trump said on Breitbart News Daily. "It's a tremendously successful job. It's called Trump Towers—two towers, instead of one, not the usual one, it's two."

http://time.com/4746348/donald-trump...lict-interest/


A Trump conflict of interest. True patriotic Americans should be concerned about a President who may act to protect his own personal interests. Turkey is but one; there may be many other substantial conflicts. We patriotic, true Americans deserve the right to know. Patriotic Trump supporters need to demand he release his tax returns.

[lustylad]

Originally Posted by Milly23

1) Comey was wrong.

Was Comey wrong last July when he said “no reasonable prosecutor” would file charges against hildebeest? Oh wait, that's different, huh? Is he right when he is exculpating dimotard misdeeds, but wrong otherwise? It must be confusing for you to keep track of all your conflicting talking points. Comey is a villain... except when he's a hero!


He broke protocol speaking in the first place so all of your nonsense is pointless. He went against the wishes of his boss.

Did you read the New York Times article, millsy? The DOJ, not the FBI, initially disclosed the investigation into hildebeest's emails. From the link:

“The F.B.I.’s involvement with Mrs. Clinton’s emails began in July 2015 when it received a letter from the inspector general for the intelligence community... The letter said that classified information had been found on Mrs. Clinton’s home email server, which she had used as secretary of state...

On July 10, 2015, the F.B.I. opened a criminal investigation, code-named 'Midyear,' into Mrs. Clinton’s handling of classified information... Responding to questions from The Times, the Justice Department confirmed that it had received a criminal referral — the first step toward a criminal investigation — over Mrs. Clinton’s handling of classified information.”

At the get-go, Comey didn't break protocol. His boss at the DOJ did. So get your facts straight before you spout nonsense about him “going against the wishes of his boss”. And let's be honest, shall we? If the dimotards had any common sense, they would have disqualified hildebeest from running for President as soon as it became known that she set up an illegal private server and destroyed 30,000 emails in defiance of FOIA requests and Congressional subpoenas. But they don't (have common sense), so they didn't (disqualify her).


The reason he had to tell Congress about evidence that he had no idea if it was pertinent to Clinton was because he spoke publicly to begin with. Which again goes against protocol.

And why did Comey speak out publicly in July 2016 after the investigation was completed? Because his boss Loretta Lynch had compromised herself by meeting with hildebeest's husband, Slick Willy, in an airplane on the tarmac in Phoenix. Because of her own stupidity, Lynch had to step aside. The NYT story makes it clear that is when Comey decided he had no choice but to step up and take it upon himself to explain the results of the FBI investigation once it was completed.


As does doing anything 60 days out from a election.

As I already explained, he was honor-bound to keep his promise to Congress. Keeping promises is important to most of us, although maybe not to partisan political hacks.


Way to talk about what Comeys (sic) ALLIES think. Yes they thought it was two separate things. And cases can be different but the public should have known about both if you're talking about one.

Read the New York Times story, millsy. It will make you better informed. Prior to the election, Comey offered to go public with an op-ed warning of Russian interference, but the idea was rejected by... (wait for it)... President Obama! Here is a direct quote from the NYT link:

“The White House decided it would be odd for Mr. Comey to make such an accusation on his own, in a newspaper, before American security agencies had produced a formal intelligence assessment. The op-ed idea was quashed. When the administration had something to say about Russia, it would do so in one voice, through the proper channels.”


Talk about hyper partisan. You're as much of that as anyone.

Ya thinks? Am I being hyper-partisan when I quote what is published by your own libtard newspaper, the New York Times?


Well her top aide was married to a guy with questionable behaviors.... We elected a guy who has been on camera talking about some things just as bad. So stop.

Hahaha.... this is fun! Anthony Weiner was being investigated by the FBI for luring underage girls into (forbidden topic). And you think Trump's decade-old pussy grabbing tape was “just as bad”? Um, ok. That makes sense. I guess. By the way, have you figured out yet how the pussy grabber beat hildebeest by TEN PERCENTAGE POINTS among white women voters?

And nice try at deflecting. In case people have forgotten, my original question was - why don't you dimotards lay off Comey and go after the REAL culprit, Carlos Danger???




2) Susan Rice declined speaking because as it was reported she was the only person coming that wasn't agreed upon by both Whitehouse and Graham. Which she saw as a partisan move.

Oh, so you think the ranking minority member of a Senate committee is allowed to dictate who should and should not be called to testify? Sorry millsy, that's not how it works.


Funny, you want to hear what she has to say now. Trump and Pence dismissed her when she warned them of Flynn.

First of all, Susan Rice didn't warn Trump and Pence about Flynn. Sally Yates did. Once again, you need to get your facts straight. And given how many times Susan Rice has been caught lying, I would be the last person to ignore anything she says. I want her to talk her heart out. The more she talks, the more she will be caught up in her lies. Your girl told Judy Woodruff on PBS “I know nothing about this (unmasking)” - just days before she was forced to walk it all back and admit to Andrea Mitchell on MSNBC that she actively engaged in unmasking. Can you defend that, millsy? Didn't think so.


I'm not going to read all that nonsense about unmasking.

Open-minded, aintcha? How do you know it's “nonsense” if you haven't even read it?


Nor will I waste time finding an article that will easy (sic) say the opposite because I guarantee you I could find them.

Hahaha... more libtard illogic! You claim you can “guarantee” you can find an article that says the opposite of the one you refuse to read (and therefore have no idea what is in it)? So... you can refute assertions without hearing them? I love it! This is why libtards lose debates!


She asked for them to be unmasked. It's not illegal. It's normal protocol. Get over it.

Thanks again, millsy. As I told you already, I would LOVE to “get over it”. If all of her unmasking was “normal protocol” and none of it related to any desire to glean information about the Trump campaign, then why not testify about it? I am merely trying to follow Ronnie Reagan's famous dictum - “Trust but verify!”


She will testify. It won't prove anything wrong occurred. And then Trump will spin it and people like you will eat it like horse shit.

Hmmm.... you mean spin it like Susan Rice did when she characterized Benghazi as a spontaneous demonstration against a youtube video? Do you really think Trump is THAT smooth a liar?

And your metaphor doesn't work. I don't know anyone who eats horse shit. Wanna try again, millsy? Do you mean "eat it like a horse"?


As for the back and forward. Stop replying to me. Hell don't even reply to what I just said.

Uh-oh.... here comes the meltdown. When you're losing the argument, tell the other guy to shut up. Fuck the First Amendment! I DEMAND that you stop replying!


It's probably going to be hyper partisan, while you try to call others the same.

You keep conflating “hyper partisan” with my penchant for relying on facts and logic.


And I don't care what nonsense you respond with.

There you go again, millsy, begging the question. I have to respond first, before anything I say can be deemed “nonsense”.


I told you last time I have no desire to talk to someone who believes that coal mining and policy is the same as the racial insensitivity coming from Trump.

That's not what I said. You need to listen and comprehend better.


Your opinion is shit.

Meltdown complete! Thanks, millsy... you just gave me a new signature line.


Go on about your day when you see me post and I will do the same.

Having fun yet? I am!

[lustylad]

Originally Posted by Milly23

Umm I've had plenty of back and forwards about opinions with that guy. That's not the issue if you read. It's an opinion that coal mining/policy is different from racism. Sorry if you don't believe that also. But it's not. And that guy continued to talk about how they were the same. So yeah I don't want to interact with him because if that's his basis of thought, he's not worth it for me to communicate with. Guess what, it's my decision who I have conversation with.

Now, now, now, millsy. Don't misrepresent our conversation. Anyone can go back and re-read our previous posts. Look, we had two highly offensive candidates running for President. You refused to accept the possibility that some voters could have been AS MUCH OR MORE OFFENDED BY HILDEBEEST as you say you were by Trump. You want to put yourself on a pedestal and say your feelings and visceral reactions are superior to everyone else's. When I admonished you to be a little more EMPATHETIC, like all good Democrats are supposed to be, you reached for the race card.

It's bad enough that hildebeest campaigned openly on a promise to kill the livelihoods of workers in an entire industry. Why do you have to add insult to injury by saying her political tone-deafness is nothing more than a “policy” question? That's very insensitive of you, millsy. Just like that guy in the White House you despise.

Yes, Trump has made “racially insensitive” statements. I cringed at them. Over the years, I have also cringed at Joe Biden's racially insensitive comments. Were you offended by Biden's gaffes? Or did you shrug them off as “Joe being Joe”? Does Biden get a pass since he is a Democrat who espouses policies you approve of? Maybe your playing the race card is a smokescreen for your liberal ideology. Would Trump offend you as much if he was a liberal? Tell the truth, millsy. I can't presume to answer the question for you because (unlike you) I don't presume to know everyone else's true feelings.

Originally Posted by Milly23

Where am I acting like the master of the universe? Did I say don't comment on anyone's post? No. I told him to avoid my post because I want nothing to do with his comments. That's my right. You know as an American, which you said was a blessing. So do I not have that right? Or is that only reserved for certain things?

You're lying, millsy. You just told me not to comment on your posts:

Originally Posted by Milly23

Stop replying to me... Your opinion is shit.

Aren't you such a font of charm and articulateness!

Why don't you run off and get yourself a job banning conservative speech at Berkeley or some other libtard sanctuary? In the right environment, your fascist instincts could really flourish. I particularly like the way you pretend it's within YOUR rights as an American to take away MY First Amendment rights. That's downright Orwellian of you, millsy.

This is why you fucking libtards keep losing debates. The more you lose, the more you show your intellectual feebleness by trying to silence the other side.

[SpeedRacerXXX]

Originally Posted by lustylad

It's bad enough that hildebeest campaigned openly on a promise to kill the livelihoods of workers in an entire industry.

While I agree with much of what you said in your post, assuming you mean the coal workers, I think you are forgetting something. The coal industry in the U.S. is dying.

http://climatenexus.org/learn/energy...-united-states

Climate-related regulations have played a SMALL part in the decline as the article states and Clinton's objective was to retrain the coal workers in other fields such as software development. Clinton made it clear that as coal mining jobs disappeared it was her intent to train displaced workers for alternate careers.

"Success stories of coal communities working to diversify their economies are beginning to emerge. For example, BitSource, a software and development company in Kentucky, trains and employs former coal miners."

And if anyone thinks that Trump will be successful in bringing those coal mining jobs back, most opinions differ.

http://e360.yale.edu/features/why_us...ot_coming_back

https://cleantechnica.com/2017/01/27...ne-2017-ieefa/

Let's see how effective Trump is at stopping the disappearance of coal mining jobs. More than likely another broken promise.

[Yssup Rider]

The coal industry is dying. Petroleum next.

Nothing Twitler can do to save them.

Time to -- perish the thought -- educate our workforce!

[Milly23]

Here's why you can't have conversations with certain people. You say I didnt say don't talk to anyone. Just avoid talking to me. And the person highlights the first sentence and then says you are lying by stating what you said in the next sentence. That's the type of person you can't talk to.

[Austin Ellen]

Okie dokie - I just got up on the news and wowzer!! Look at the economy numbers - 4.4 percent unemployment!!! The lowest in TEN years. Trump said he was going to lower unemployment and he SURPASSED expectations. Now that is good news for ALL Americans!! Yay!

[SpeedRacerXXX]

Originally Posted by Austin Ellen

Okie dokie - I just got up on the news and wowzer!! Look at the economy numbers - 4.4 percent unemployment!!! The lowest in TEN years. Trump said he was going to lower unemployment and he SURPASSED expectations. Now that is good news for ALL Americans!! Yay!

Can you point out the policies that Trump has enacted that led to the lowering of the unemployment rate? March, and the first quarter of 2017 in total, had dismal job growth. April great job growth. When Obama took office the unemployment rate was 10%. When he left office, 4.6%. Trump brought it down .2% from that previous low. I would hardly say that Trump has surpassed expectations in this regard. Wage growth has been anemic, barely staying ahead of inflation. Future job growth will depend greatly on the tax breaks and increased spending on infrastructure.

I find it ironic that when Obama was so successful in bringing down the unemployment rate, Republicans scoffed at what they believed to be manipulation of the rate. Now that the President is Republican, they are citing the SAME unemployment rate as a success story. Hmmm.

But it certainly can be interpreted as success at this point in time. More success than the AHCA.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/05/b...ment.html?_r=0

[Milly23]

Originally Posted by Austin Ellen

Okie dokie - I just got up on the news and wowzer!! Look at the economy numbers - 4.4 percent unemployment!!! The lowest in TEN years. Trump said he was going to lower unemployment and he SURPASSED expectations. Now that is good news for ALL Americans!! Yay!

That is good news for all Americans. But while you are thanking Trump. Maybe remember that the guy before him kinda helped with that. I know you probably won't want to admit it. But Obama left Trump in a good position economically. It's easy to have the lowest in TEN years when it's being going down for awhile. It's just before Trump said that the true rate was higher and didn't believe those numbers. Now, for some odd reason the reasons are TRUE. I will save my wowzers for when he's been in office for at least 2 years and it's all on him. But getting people to work is good, it's just been good for a few years.

[Cap'n Crunch]

Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

The coal industry is dying. Petroleum next.

Tesla electric car. Welcome to the future.

[Austin Ellen]

Milly, Obama did not had over a bad economy, I agree. But, I believe President Trump will make it even better. And that would be a good thing for everybody.

Originally Posted by Milly23

That is good news for all Americans. But while you are thanking Trump. Maybe remember that the guy before him kinda helped with that. I know you probably won't want to admit it. But Obama left Trump in a good position economically. It's easy to have the lowest in TEN years when it's being going down for awhile. It's just before Trump said that the true rate was higher and didn't believe those numbers. Now, for some odd reason the reasons are TRUE. I will save my wowzers for when he's been in office for at least 2 years and it's all on him. But getting people to work is good, it's just been good for a few years.

[Austin Ellen]

There was an article on CNN - And of course, I can't find it now. They said the low March numbers were due to the severe weather in the States.
I think the numbers look good because there is optimism in Trump for a healthier economy. He brings his business skills to the table and people like that. They have confidence in Trump. He's not another political guy in the White House. And folks trust more in someone who is not a politician. I'm sure not everybody does but that's just my opinion.

Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

Can you point out the policies that Trump has enacted that led to the lowering of the unemployment rate? March, and the first quarter of 2017 in total, had dismal job growth. April great job growth. When Obama took office the unemployment rate was 10%. When he left office, 4.6%. Trump brought it down .2% from that previous low. I would hardly say that Trump has surpassed expectations in this regard. Wage growth has been anemic, barely staying ahead of inflation. Future job growth will depend greatly on the tax breaks and increased spending on infrastructure.

I find it ironic that when Obama was so successful in bringing down the unemployment rate, Republicans scoffed at what they believed to be manipulation of the rate. Now that the President is Republican, they are citing the SAME unemployment rate as a success story. Hmmm.

But it certainly can be interpreted as success at this point in time. More success than the AHCA.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/05/b...ment.html?_r=0

[Milly23]

Originally Posted by Austin Ellen

Milly, Obama did not had over a bad economy, I agree. But, I believe President Trump will make it even better. And that would be a good thing for everybody.

That would be a good thing for everybody definitely. We will have to wait and see.

[DSK]

Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

The coal industry is dying. Petroleum next.

Nothing Twitler can do to save them.

Time to -- perish the thought -- educate our workforce!

Coal is dying, & will be replaced by natural gas.

Petroleum is irreplaceable - the world uses almost 100 million barrels a day.

[lustylad]

Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

While I agree with much of what you said in your post, assuming you mean the coal workers, I think you are forgetting something. The coal industry in the U.S. is dying.

http://climatenexus.org/learn/energy...-united-states

Climate-related regulations have played a SMALL part in the decline as the article states and Clinton's objective was to retrain the coal workers in other fields such as software development. Clinton made it clear that as coal mining jobs disappeared it was her intent to train displaced workers for alternate careers.

"Success stories of coal communities working to diversify their economies are beginning to emerge. For example, BitSource, a software and development company in Kentucky, trains and employs former coal miners."

And if anyone thinks that Trump will be successful in bringing those coal mining jobs back, most opinions differ.

http://e360.yale.edu/features/why_us...ot_coming_back

https://cleantechnica.com/2017/01/27...ne-2017-ieefa/

Let's see how effective Trump is at stopping the disappearance of coal mining jobs. More than likely another broken promise.

I am quite familiar with the economics of coal. The industry is declining, not dying. Last time I checked we were still generating 1/3 of our electricity from coal. I don't deny the fracking boom and resulting flood of cheap natural gas is a major driver behind coal's recent decline. This is ironic since the same environmentalists who want to shut down coal production also want to stop fracking. Longer term, the use of new mining techniques and labor-saving machinery is responsible for much of the drop in coal jobs. As an economist, I applaud the fact that it takes fewer and fewer workers to produce a ton of coal. That's called productivity gain. So I agree with you that those coal mining jobs won't be coming back, certainly not in the numbers we enjoyed as recently as a decade ago. At best, Trump's actions will stabilize employment or produce a modest uptick.

Having said that, it's silly to look back and claim the impact of Obama's EPA rulings and regulations would have been negligible. If hildebeest had been elected, they would have stayed on the books, overcome legal hurdles, and accelerated coal's market-driven decline. She told us that herself when she boasted “We're going to put a lot of coal companies out of business.” Look, I don't have a problem if coal loses ground because natural gas and/or renewables are becoming more competitive. But I have a big problem when the federal government steps in and tilts the playing field in favor of one energy source and against another.

When it comes to reducing coal plant emissions, most of the low-hanging fruit has already been picked. Acid rain is much less of a problem than it was 40 years ago. The newer EPA standards applied to CO2 would have effectively mothballed many coal-fired power plants well before the end of their useful economic lives. This would have resulted in stranded costs, the recovery of which would push up electricity rates throughout areas that are already economically depressed.

I find it hard to criticize Trump for shamelessly pandering to voters in coal mining states, when he did so in response to hildebeest's shameless pandering to environmentalists. And no one in those states trusts the government to create the so-called jobs of the future. I'll be happy to applaud any success stories you can point to whereby coal communities are diversifying, but I am tired of hearing those cavalier libtard talking points about how job training and welfare will make any transition easy. Unemployed coal miners don't want handouts. And real practical job skills are usually acquired on the job with private employers, not taught by government.

By the way, I read your links before posting. Good stuff, even though I might dispute some of it. Too bad the fascist libtards in this forum are too rigid, closed-minded and ignorant to read my links.