Australian Politics Forum - surely not even the fanboys can defend this...

John Smith Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 78311 Gender:	Re: surely not even the fanboys can defend this... Reply #75 - Feb 11^th, 2017 at 7:31am Mortdooley wrote on Feb 10^th, 2017 at 11:35pm: Trump jumped to the defense of his daughter because she was being punished for who her father is nothing to do with the lack of sales, right?
Back to top	Our esteemed leader: I hope that bitch who was running their brothels for them gets raped with a cactus. IP Logged

longweekend58 Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 45675 Gender:	Re: surely not even the fanboys can defend this... Reply #76 - Feb 11^th, 2017 at 8:00am Two companies dropped two Trump lines because of commercial-only decisions. Surely as an alleged businessman he would understand the reasons behind such things. Who are we kidding... this is Trump the Narcissist.
Back to top	AUSSIE: "Speaking for myself, I could not care less about 298 human beings having their life snuffed out in a nano-second, or what impact that loss has on Members of their family, their parents..." IP Logged

Dnarever

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 61387
Here
Gender: male

Re: surely not even the fanboys can defend this...
Reply #77 - Feb 11^th, 2017 at 9:56am

John Smith wrote on Feb 10^th, 2017 at 8:13pm:

panther will cry for a month when trump is impeached ..... Grin

No the conservative are all very happy to eat their own. Remember how they all celebrated when Abbott overthrew Turnbull ? They spent 2 years calling Turnbull every name in the book and now they all love him again?

Do you really think that they wont celebrate his demise again.

They will see Trumps demise as a huge relief, they do in reality know what a disaster he is.

Back to top

IP Logged

Panther

Gold Member

Offline

My Heart beats True for
the Red White & Blue...

Posts: 11876
Gender: male

Re: surely not even the fanboys can defend this...
Reply #78 - Feb 11^th, 2017 at 10:23am

Melanias purse wrote on Feb 10^th, 2017 at 10:48pm:

Panther wrote on Feb 10^th, 2017 at 3:46pm:

@

gandalf....

That wreaks of 3^rd party, no?

Who "retweeted" Trump's original tweet?

That would/could be termed a "smoking gun" if the AG, part of the Trump Administration, were so inclined to take down Trump on petty charges like, tweeting while intoxicated, or tweeting falsely under oath......etc...& then get a super majority of US Senators to agree completely.

Please proffer your findings of exactly what parts of his freedom of speech is forbidden by statute....I know of no statute that defines anything of the sort. Tnx...

I say, Panther, was Hillary's private email server covered by the Firat Amendment too?

I'm curious.

IMHO....No, that's completely different. Mishandling Classified Information....information that didn't belong to her, information that belonged to the Government....thereby, the People. They're talking possible espionage.....the laws she has been said to have broken, had nothing whatsoever to do with the basic Freedom of Speech contained in the First Amendment to the US Constitution, & if they prosecuted her by existing espionage law, she wouldn't stand much of a chance....

Much???

On any given day any jury can find for a different outcome based on the exact same evidence.

In America, on that one day, when the jury foreman reads their verdict, on that day the jury is the law.....regardless of what is written in any law book, they can decide for whatever outcome they want. If it's contrary to the written law, or to legal precedence,
it is called "
Jury Nullification
".....where the jury knows the law, but by their action they choose to nullify or ignore that law.

Another case, where in America, the ultimate power rests in the hands of the People, & not in the hands of government.

The jury is also protected, by law, from having to divulge their reasoning leading up to their decision. They can choose to individually discuss their individual feelings with the media.....or not discuss the matter at all.....their choice.

Sometimes that works to the majorities benefit, sometimes not.

Back to top

« Last Edit: Feb 11^th, 2017 at 11:25am by Panther »

"When the People fear government there is Tyranny;
When government fears the People there is Freedom & Liberty!"

'
Live FREE or DIE!
'

IP Logged

SadKangaroo

Gold Member

Offline

Not sad, just paying attention
to how cooked it is

Posts: 22029
Meeanjin (Brisbane)

Re: surely not even the fanboys can defend this...
Reply #79 - Feb 11^th, 2017 at 12:33pm

Panther wrote on Feb 10^th, 2017 at 12:20pm:

I agree.....but we should all care......care that the Freedom of Speech.....The First Amendment to the US Constitution.....is under attack by those that would wish the President would stop using his Constitutional Rights to voice his opinions, solely because they hate him.

Wow...

Trump was right, he really could just shoot someone in the street and his supporters wouldn't care.

Despite what his many devotee seem to think, he is not above the law. Yes, he does enjoy some exemptions from the ethics rules as do many Senators and Congressmen so as to not impede their official duties because of conflicts of interest with their personal/professional lives, but he is still not above the law.

At the end of the day, he's only doing what everyone other than the so desperately gullible people thought he would. Big surprise he only has his own interests in mind.

Back to top

IP Logged

SadKangaroo Gold Member Offline Not sad, just paying attention to how cooked it is Posts: 22029 Meeanjin (Brisbane)	Re: surely not even the fanboys can defend this... Reply #80 - Feb 11^th, 2017 at 12:34pm What about Trump's personal email server?
Back to top	IP Logged

longweekend58

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 45675
Gender: male

Re: surely not even the fanboys can defend this...
Reply #81 - Feb 11^th, 2017 at 1:09pm

SadKangaroo wrote on Feb 11^th, 2017 at 12:33pm:

Panther wrote on Feb 10^th, 2017 at 12:20pm:

I agree.....but we should all care......care that the Freedom of Speech.....The First Amendment to the US Constitution.....is under attack by those that would wish the President would stop using his Constitutional Rights to voice his opinions, solely because they hate him.

Wow...

Trump was right, he really could just shoot someone in the street and his supporters wouldn't care.

Despite what his many devotee seem to think, he is not above the law. Yes, he does enjoy some exemptions from the ethics rules as do many Senators and Congressmen so as to not impede their official duties because of conflicts of interest with their personal/professional lives, but he is still not above the law.

At the end of the day, he's only doing what everyone other than the so desperately gullible people thought he would. Big surprise he only has his own interests in mind.

the trumpoids wont criticise him over ANYTHInG

Back to top

AUSSIE: "Speaking for myself, I could not care less about 298 human beings having their life snuffed out in a nano-second, or what impact that loss has on Members of their family, their parents..."

IP Logged

Melanias purse

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 101637

Re: surely not even the fanboys can defend this...
Reply #82 - Feb 11^th, 2017 at 1:12pm

Panther wrote on Feb 11^th, 2017 at 10:23am:

Melanias purse wrote on Feb 10^th, 2017 at 10:48pm:

Panther wrote on Feb 10^th, 2017 at 3:46pm:

@

gandalf....

That wreaks of 3^rd party, no?

Who "retweeted" Trump's original tweet?

That would/could be termed a "smoking gun" if the AG, part of the Trump Administration, were so inclined to take down Trump on petty charges like, tweeting while intoxicated, or tweeting falsely under oath......etc...& then get a super majority of US Senators to agree completely.

Please proffer your findings of exactly what parts of his freedom of speech is forbidden by statute....I know of no statute that defines anything of the sort. Tnx...

I say, Panther, was Hillary's private email server covered by the Firat Amendment too?

I'm curious.

IMHO....No, that's completely different. Mishandling Classified Information....information that didn't belong to her, information that belonged to the Government....thereby, the People. They're talking possible espionage.....the laws she has been said to have broken, had nothing whatsoever to do with the basic Freedom of Speech contained in the First Amendment to the US Constitution, & if they prosecuted her by existing espionage law, she wouldn't stand much of a chance....

Much???

On any given day any jury can find for a different outcome based on the exact same evidence.

In America, on that one day, when the jury foreman reads their verdict, on that day the jury is the law.....regardless of what is written in any law book, they can decide for whatever outcome they want. If it's contrary to the written law, or to legal precedence,
it is called "
Jury Nullification
".....where the jury knows the law, but by their action they choose to nullify or ignore that law.

Another case, where in America, the ultimate power rests in the hands of the People, & not in the hands of government.

The jury is also protected, by law, from having to divulge their reasoning leading up to their decision. They can choose to individually discuss their individual feelings with the media.....or not discuss the matter at all.....their choice.

Sometimes that works to the majorities benefit, sometimes not.

Are you saying Hillary gave this information to the wrong person, Panther?

Please explain. It seems to me that if Mr Trump's free to say what he thinks about businesses, judges and his daughter's line of lingerie, Hillary should be free to send private emails to people.

It's in your constitution, yes?

Back to top

IP Logged

longweekend58

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 45675
Gender: male

Re: surely not even the fanboys can defend this...
Reply #83 - Feb 11^th, 2017 at 1:16pm

Melanias purse wrote on Feb 11^th, 2017 at 1:12pm:

Panther wrote on Feb 11^th, 2017 at 10:23am:

Melanias purse wrote on Feb 10^th, 2017 at 10:48pm:

Panther wrote on Feb 10^th, 2017 at 3:46pm:

@

gandalf....

That wreaks of 3^rd party, no?

Who "retweeted" Trump's original tweet?

That would/could be termed a "smoking gun" if the AG, part of the Trump Administration, were so inclined to take down Trump on petty charges like, tweeting while intoxicated, or tweeting falsely under oath......etc...& then get a super majority of US Senators to agree completely.

Please proffer your findings of exactly what parts of his freedom of speech is forbidden by statute....I know of no statute that defines anything of the sort. Tnx...

I say, Panther, was Hillary's private email server covered by the Firat Amendment too?

I'm curious.

IMHO....No, that's completely different. Mishandling Classified Information....information that didn't belong to her, information that belonged to the Government....thereby, the People. They're talking possible espionage.....the laws she has been said to have broken, had nothing whatsoever to do with the basic Freedom of Speech contained in the First Amendment to the US Constitution, & if they prosecuted her by existing espionage law, she wouldn't stand much of a chance....

Much???

On any given day any jury can find for a different outcome based on the exact same evidence.

In America, on that one day, when the jury foreman reads their verdict, on that day the jury is the law.....regardless of what is written in any law book, they can decide for whatever outcome they want. If it's contrary to the written law, or to legal precedence,
it is called "
Jury Nullification
".....where the jury knows the law, but by their action they choose to nullify or ignore that law.

Another case, where in America, the ultimate power rests in the hands of the People, & not in the hands of government.

The jury is also protected, by law, from having to divulge their reasoning leading up to their decision. They can choose to individually discuss their individual feelings with the media.....or not discuss the matter at all.....their choice.

Sometimes that works to the majorities benefit, sometimes not.

Are you saying Hillary gave this information to the wrong person, Panther?

Please explain. It seems to me that if Mr Trump's free to say what he thinks about businesses, judges and his daughter's line of lingerie, Hillary should be free to send private emails to people.

It's in your constitution, yes?

I dont think you will find that line of logic will get anywhere. Panther is absolutely convinced that Trump has the unfettered right to do absolutely anything he wishes at any time.

Back to top

AUSSIE: "Speaking for myself, I could not care less about 298 human beings having their life snuffed out in a nano-second, or what impact that loss has on Members of their family, their parents..."

IP Logged

Panther

Gold Member

Offline

My Heart beats True for
the Red White & Blue...

Posts: 11876
Gender: male

Re: surely not even the fanboys can defend this...
Reply #84 - Feb 11^th, 2017 at 1:54pm

Melanias purse wrote on Feb 11^th, 2017 at 1:12pm:

Panther wrote on Feb 11^th, 2017 at 10:23am:

Melanias purse wrote on Feb 10^th, 2017 at 10:48pm:

Panther wrote on Feb 10^th, 2017 at 3:46pm:

@

gandalf....

That wreaks of 3^rd party, no?

Who "retweeted" Trump's original tweet?

That would/could be termed a "smoking gun" if the AG, part of the Trump Administration, were so inclined to take down Trump on petty charges like, tweeting while intoxicated, or tweeting falsely under oath......etc...& then get a super majority of US Senators to agree completely.

Please proffer your findings of exactly what parts of his freedom of speech is forbidden by statute....I know of no statute that defines anything of the sort. Tnx...

I say, Panther, was Hillary's private email server covered by the Firat Amendment too?

I'm curious.

IMHO....No, that's completely different. Mishandling Classified Information....information that didn't belong to her, information that belonged to the Government....thereby, the People. They're talking possible espionage.....the laws she has been said to have broken, had nothing whatsoever to do with the basic Freedom of Speech contained in the First Amendment to the US Constitution, & if they prosecuted her by existing espionage law, she wouldn't stand much of a chance....

Much???

On any given day any jury can find for a different outcome based on the exact same evidence.

In America, on that one day, when the jury foreman reads their verdict, on that day the jury is the law.....regardless of what is written in any law book, they can decide for whatever outcome they want. If it's contrary to the written law, or to legal precedence,
it is called "
Jury Nullification
".....where the jury knows the law, but by their action they choose to nullify or ignore that law.

Another case, where in America, the ultimate power rests in the hands of the People, & not in the hands of government.

The jury is also protected, by law, from having to divulge their reasoning leading up to their decision. They can choose to individually discuss their individual feelings with the media.....or not discuss the matter at all.....their choice.

Sometimes that works to the majorities benefit, sometimes not.

Are you saying Hillary gave this information to the wrong person, Panther?

Please explain. It seems to me that if Mr Trump's free to say what he thinks about businesses, judges and his daughter's line of lingerie, Hillary should be free to send private emails to people.

It's in your constitution, yes?

As an employee of the People, as Sec. of State, she had the responsibility of protecting Classified information, work product that does not belong to her personally, nor ever belonged to her personally, from people who may have motives not in the best interests of America, & its People (her employers), from accessing that Classified Information.

This never was about her personal emails, say to her daughter, or her husband, to her Uncle Fred.

This was always about how she stored, & where she stored Classified Information vital to National Security, subjecting these materials, & her work product, to the peering eyes of anyone able to break into her unsecured server(s).....to the detriment of the American People & her Government.

Clinton chose not only to disregard that responsibility, but decided to co-mingle her personal correspondence with her Work Product & Classified Correspondence, in a flagrant display of indifference, even though she was, by her own Congressional testimony & eventual admission, she was completely aware that it was inappropriate to do so. Her reasoning that years before her that it was done by another Secretary of State, but later admitted that she was aware that subsequently, new laws had since been put in place to guard against using "Personal Servers" which may lead to housing Classified Information insecurely & illegally.

Now, any of her personal correspondence, not related to her duties as Secretary of State would be perfectly fine on the server she decided to use, but by law she was aware she needed to keep America's Classified Information, & all her work product, separate, & secure on government servers.

It's not, & never was a Freedom of Speech issue.....& for the life of me, I can not honestly understand how anyone in their right minds can confuse her activity, with how President Trump spoke freely about what he did, & as he did on Twitter.

It's like comparing his using a strong mouth wash, with her using caustic drain cleaner, both with different end results.

Back to top

« Last Edit: Feb 11^th, 2017 at 2:52pm by Panther »

"When the People fear government there is Tyranny;
When government fears the People there is Freedom & Liberty!"

'
Live FREE or DIE!
'

IP Logged

Melanias purse

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 101637

Re: surely not even the fanboys can defend this...
Reply #85 - Feb 11^th, 2017 at 2:35pm

longweekend58 wrote on Feb 11^th, 2017 at 1:16pm:

Melanias purse wrote on Feb 11^th, 2017 at 1:12pm:

Panther wrote on Feb 11^th, 2017 at 10:23am:

Melanias purse wrote on Feb 10^th, 2017 at 10:48pm:

Panther wrote on Feb 10^th, 2017 at 3:46pm:

@

gandalf....

That wreaks of 3^rd party, no?

Who "retweeted" Trump's original tweet?

That would/could be termed a "smoking gun" if the AG, part of the Trump Administration, were so inclined to take down Trump on petty charges like, tweeting while intoxicated, or tweeting falsely under oath......etc...& then get a super majority of US Senators to agree completely.

Please proffer your findings of exactly what parts of his freedom of speech is forbidden by statute....I know of no statute that defines anything of the sort. Tnx...

I say, Panther, was Hillary's private email server covered by the Firat Amendment too?

I'm curious.

IMHO....No, that's completely different. Mishandling Classified Information....information that didn't belong to her, information that belonged to the Government....thereby, the People. They're talking possible espionage.....the laws she has been said to have broken, had nothing whatsoever to do with the basic Freedom of Speech contained in the First Amendment to the US Constitution, & if they prosecuted her by existing espionage law, she wouldn't stand much of a chance....

Much???

On any given day any jury can find for a different outcome based on the exact same evidence.

In America, on that one day, when the jury foreman reads their verdict, on that day the jury is the law.....regardless of what is written in any law book, they can decide for whatever outcome they want. If it's contrary to the written law, or to legal precedence,
it is called "
Jury Nullification
".....where the jury knows the law, but by their action they choose to nullify or ignore that law.

Another case, where in America, the ultimate power rests in the hands of the People, & not in the hands of government.

The jury is also protected, by law, from having to divulge their reasoning leading up to their decision. They can choose to individually discuss their individual feelings with the media.....or not discuss the matter at all.....their choice.

Sometimes that works to the majorities benefit, sometimes not.

Are you saying Hillary gave this information to the wrong person, Panther?

Please explain. It seems to me that if Mr Trump's free to say what he thinks about businesses, judges and his daughter's line of lingerie, Hillary should be free to send private emails to people.

It's in your constitution, yes?

I dont think you will find that line of logic will get anywhere. Panther is absolutely convinced that Trump has the unfettered right to do absolutely anything he wishes at any time.

The pursuit of happiness, eh?

Good point. It's in the constitution.

Back to top

IP Logged

Melanias purse Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 101637	Re: surely not even the fanboys can defend this... Reply #86 - Feb 11^th, 2017 at 2:41pm But Panther. Two FBI enquiries said she didn't do any of those things. Trump is using his POTUS Twitter account to conduct private business and vandettas. Is this allowed in your constitution?
Back to top	IP Logged

Panther

Gold Member

Offline

My Heart beats True for
the Red White & Blue...

Posts: 11876
Gender: male

Re: surely not even the fanboys can defend this...
Reply #87 - Feb 11^th, 2017 at 2:58pm

Melanias purse wrote on Feb 11^th, 2017 at 2:41pm:

But Panther. Two FBI enquiries said she didn't do any of those things.

Trump is using his POTUS Twitter account to conduct private business and vandettas.

Is this allowed in your constitution?

I don't know if there is anything in our Australian Constitution covering that, but so far in the US Constitution I can't find anywhere it's expressly not permitted?......Can you? If so, specifically where?

BTW....can you link to those specific tweets, you know, precisely where he is, as you claim, he is actually conducting "Private Business" &/or Personal "Vendettas", if they exist, which as of late you can understand me having some "minor" doubts as to their existence?

Hey, I'm sure most everyone would like to see them.......find them & post them here for us all to peruse. Thanks

Back to top

« Last Edit: Feb 11^th, 2017 at 3:16pm by Panther »

"When the People fear government there is Tyranny;
When government fears the People there is Freedom & Liberty!"

'
Live FREE or DIE!
'

IP Logged

SadKangaroo

Gold Member

Offline

Not sad, just paying attention
to how cooked it is

Posts: 22029
Meeanjin (Brisbane)

Re: surely not even the fanboys can defend this...
Reply #88 - Feb 11^th, 2017 at 3:53pm

I'm just astonished how so many thing that made Clinton utterly unelectable and the most corrupt and dishonest politician ever are not only acceptable but defending when they are actions Trump takes.

Clearly those are not the reasons to vote against Clinton or not support her, something else must be at play.

At the same time, the moment Trump took the oath people were claiming he'd already made America great again. He did nothing at that point.

Again, something else must be at play.

I know what it looks like from the outside observer, but it can't really be that simple, can it?

Back to top

IP Logged

Raven

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 2982
Around

Re: surely not even the fanboys can defend this...
Reply #89 - Feb 12^th, 2017 at 1:30am

Panther wrote on Feb 11^th, 2017 at 2:58pm:

BTW....can you link to those specific tweets, you know, precisely where he is, as you claim, he is actually conducting "Private Business" &/or Personal "Vendettas", if they exist, which as of late you can understand me having some "minor" doubts as to their existence?

Hey, I'm sure most everyone would like to see them.......find them & post them here for us all to peruse. Thanks Wink

Trump is certainly using his @realDonalTrump to carry out personal vendettas.

Everything he says about SNL

Nordstrom

CNN

Senator McCain

A Federal Court Judge

The Courts

NY Times

Arnold Schwarzenegger

The voting system

No doubt Raven has forgotten some but this is just a few the thin skinned narcissist can't help but attack

Back to top

Quoth the Raven "Nevermore"

Raven would rather ask questions that may never be answered, then accept answers which must never be questioned.

IP Logged