• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Cont: The Trump Presidency IX: Nein, Nein!

Status
Not open for further replies.
Slings and Arrows said:
"I still have a picture on my mantel and it is a picture my mother had before that - a picture of my grandfather. And my Aunt Bee has walked by that picture at least a 1,000 times and remarked that he - her father, my Papaw -- had high cheek bones like all of the Indians do."
-- Elizabeth Warren (May 3, 2012)


Definitive proof from an impeccable source, Aunt Bee.
Click to expand...

I searched high and low for the word "proof" or even anything remotely similar in that and came up with zilch. I'm sure you can help me out.
 
https://twitter.com/kylegriffin1/status/1039213347470798849

Voters on Trump:
• 60–32% is not honest
• 57–38% does not have good leadership skills
• 55-41% does not care about average Americans
• 65–30% not level-headed
• 57-39% is a strong person
• 51-42% is intelligent
• 60-33% does not share voters' values
@QuinnipiacPoll
Click to expand...

So, on the positives, a majority think he's intelligent and strong. He'll be happy with that.
 
Minoosh said:
ETA: I don't mean to contribute to a derail, just responding to other posts.
Click to expand...

Now, amidst all this serious discussion, I found that to be ... uh, amusing. Can responding to derail posts be considered anything OTHER THAN contributing to a derail?

Oh, hell, never mind. In this political climate, I get my meager amusements where ever I can and whenever I can. It's a lean environment for anything other than despair.
 
The Big Dog said:
false

this has been explained a half dozen times
Click to expand...

This reply needs more Schrute:

rainn-wilson-dwight-schrute-the-office2.jpg
 
Belz... said:
How can you commit perjury if you don't lie?
Click to expand...

Exactly.

But from the legal definition below, even proving a lie is not enough...

“One commits perjury who, with intent to mislead, makes before a person who is authorized by law to permit it to be made before him a false statement under oath or solemn affirmation, by affidavit, solemn declaration or deposition or orally, knowing that the statement is false.”

(Bolded mine)

So, simple changing recollections or minor discrepancies in accounts over time, in and of themselves are not perjury. One must also prove intent.

Granted, different jurisdictions may have different definitions of perjury.
 
Last edited:
Fast Eddie B said:
But from the legal definition below, even proving a lie is not enough...

“One commits perjury who, with intent to mislead, makes before a person who is authorized by law to permit it to be made before him a false statement under oath or solemn affirmation, by affidavit, solemn declaration or deposition or orally, knowing that the statement is false.”
Click to expand...

Trump isn't in any imminent danger. He's rarely coherent enough to transmit any definite intent (beyond self-aggrandizement).
 
Foolmewunz said:
If you look at Trump non-approval it's 92% amongst Dems. Approval is only currently 85% amongst Republicans. Seems that both parties have their knee-jerk defense mechanisms and tribalism.
Click to expand...

That is not a logical conclusion.
 
Cabbage said:
That is not a logical conclusion.
Click to expand...

Ya got me. Naturally, they're measuring different things.

But it's as valid a conclusion as "Lookit those lock-step bigots in the GOP! See how they support this creep!".... wouldn't you say?

The point is that both parties are partisan and back their party's presidents. At the same damned percentages.
 
Foolmewunz said:
But it's as valid a conclusion as "Lookit those lock-step bigots in the GOP! See how they support this creep!".... wouldn't you say?
Click to expand...

If the numbers you gave are all you have to go by, sure.

However, I'm thinking of a (made up) scenario such as:

88% of Scientologists believe the organization/religion/whatever is benevolent and helpful to those in need. 91% of non-Scientologists believe the group is a dangerous money-grubbing cult.

I don't think it's fair to say both sides are equally indoctrinated simply because of the high percentages of beliefs both ways.
 
Trump Tweeted

" We have found nothing to show collusion between President Trump & Russia, absolutely zero, but every day we get more documentation showing collusion between the FBI & DOJ, the Hillary campaign, foreign spies & Russians, incredible.”

"New Strzok-Page texts reveal “Media Leak Strategy.”
@FoxNews
So terrible, and NOTHING is being done at DOJ or FBI - but the world is watching, and they get it completely."

"Rudy Giuliani did a GREAT job as Mayor of NYC during the period of September 11th. His leadership, bravery and skill must never be forgotten. Rudy is a TRUE WARRIOR!"
 
Last edited:
Cabbage said:
If the numbers you gave are all you have to go by, sure.

However, I'm thinking of a (made up) scenario such as:

88% of Scientologists believe the organization/religion/whatever is benevolent and helpful to those in need. 91% of non-Scientologists believe the group is a dangerous money-grubbing cult.

I don't think it's fair to say both sides are equally indoctrinated simply because of the high percentages of beliefs both ways.
Click to expand...

Not really. We (you and I) are assured that the stuff that we think is bunk is bunk. When Obama was pulling higher approval ratings amongst Democrats the frothing right wing was wandering around in the back forty saying, "I just don't understand it, Marlene. The guy's a socialist. He hangs out with racist black preachers. He was raised a Mooslim. How can those whacktard Democrats be supporting him at 92%? What's happened to this country that they'd fall for this con job?"

I'm not saying either side is right or wrong, just that the partisanship is not subject to being a member of one particular group.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom