- Joined
- Feb 7, 2012
- Messages
- 58,409
- Reaction score
- 26,456
- Location
- Mentor Ohio
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian
Respect the "President? I can't stop laughing. I respect the office, not the man - Trix. Trump has brought nothing but disrespect to the office. He defiles it. He needs to be called-out for what he is, and removed. I support Pelosi 100% here.
Trump's problem was not solving Turkey. It was in preventing further political and Congressional actions against him. This meeting came immediately on the heels of the House Resolution against Trump, with the vast majority of the Republican House voting against Trump. Trump was screwed, and had to protect himself from further Republican defections.How do you figure that? The Obama Admin didn't need Congress to send troops into Syria.
Why would you suppose the Trump Admin would need Congress to remove them?
Well, she spoke factually and accurately to his policies. He in turn, used a personal ad hominem attack. I don't see the equivalency.Of course you do. :roll: The point here is, that if she is going to walk in and disrespect the president, then she cant walk out and whine how he disrespected her back.
Trump has no right to throw any legislator out of the White House. He lives in the People's House, not his. And he lives there at our grace & pleasure, not the other way around. If anyone is barred from the White House, it's our call - not his. And trust me, he's high on the list of candidates to potentially be barred from the premises.If Speaker Pelosi did say those words to the President of the United States of America, then she provoked him on purpose with that insolent remark.
She does not know her place.
She should be declared persona non grata and never allowed into the White House.
After all, she is doing her best to expel the President before his term expires. So he is being far too gracious to let her into the White House.
Well, she spoke factually and accurately to his policies. He in turn, used a personal ad hominem attack. I don't see the equivalency.
They should have stayed. Let me remind you again, that those three stormed out of the meeting. The meeting went on without them...
Well, she spoke factually and accurately to his policies. He in turn, used a personal ad hominem attack. I don't see the equivalency.
House Minority Whip Steve Scalise, R-La., said on Thursday that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Adam Schiff, D-Calif., are conducting an impeachment inquiry of President Trump “in secret and behind closed doors.”
“I think that Speaker Pelosi’s strategy is to try to hide in secret a lot of the information, drip out things that are selective for them in many cases that turn out to be inaccurate,” Scalise told “America’s Newsroom.”
Scalise’s comments came after Pelosi, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer and House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer walked out of a meeting with President Trump on Syria policy, after he apparently called Pelosi either a "third-rate politician.
It's a reasonable belief. You use "prove/proof" for mathematics, not reason Trix.Seriously?
Please prove Pelosi's statement, 'all roads with you lead to Putin' is both factual and accurate Trump policy.
:coffeepap
It's right in front of your eyes, Trix. How can you not see it? Right here with Turkey, and in the Ukraine. If Trump is not assisting Putin, then are we to believe Trump is so incompetent that he gets played every time?Seriously?
Please prove Pelosi's statement, 'all roads with you lead to Putin' is both factual and accurate Trump policy.
:coffeepap
It's a reasonable belief. You use "prove/proof" for mathematics, not reason Trix.
Reason uses evidence to support a belief as reasonable, or not. In this case, there is a lot of evidence to support the idea that Trump is engaged in many activities and people that lead back to Putin.
How many occurrences of that do you want to meet that hurdle, and do you promise here on the forums that if that condition is met, you'll oppose Trump because of it? Because you do know there are a lot out there.
A lot Trix. If you ant the infinite "all", then we know your post is phony. If you think 10, or 20...that can be met easily, you know this right? Maybe 30. How many would make "all roads lead to Putin" accurate enough to hold water? I think a dozen would be sufficient.
But in colloquial terms it is indeed very "provable"! I just gave the two current example (Turkey & Ukraine). Putin wins every damn time.It's a reasonable belief. You use "prove/proof" for mathematics, not reason Trix.
Reason uses evidence to support a belief as reasonable, or not. In this case, there is a lot of evidence to support the idea that Trump is engaged in many activities and people that lead back to Putin.
How many occurrences of that do you want to meet that hurdle, and do you promise here on the forums that if that condition is met, you'll oppose Trump because of it? Because you do know there are a lot out there.
A lot Trix. If you ant the infinite "all", then we know your post is phony. If you think 10, or 20...that can be met easily, you know this right? Maybe 30. How many would make "all roads lead to Putin" accurate enough to hold water? I think a dozen would be sufficient.
Whoa! :dohI didn't ask you.
It's right in front of your eyes, Trix. How can you not see it? Right here with Turkey, and in the Ukraine. If Trump is not assisting Putin, then are we to believe Trump is so incompetent that he gets played every time?
But if you take that colloquial, then we take "all roads" colloquial...whcih means it's not really "all" roads...but some finite number of roads she believes will show you're correct. What number is that? Unless she tells us, she'll act like it doesn't matter.But in colloquial terms it is indeed very "provable"! I just gave the two current example (Turkey & Ukraine). Putin wins every damn time.
both agree to disagree...
Well, she spoke factually and accurately to his policies. He in turn, used a personal ad hominem attack. I don't see the equivalency.
But in colloquial terms it is indeed very "provable"! I just gave the two current example (Turkey & Ukraine). Putin wins every damn time.
That was a win. Chomsky conceded.And there it is...Trix can't debate and bows out with a forfeiture.
That was a win. Chomsky conceded.
The part I love about this is that she left the meeting early, but the media was already set up and waiting. Tantrum on a schedule.
Far from melting down, Trump was having papers passed out, which Pelosi never bothered to read.
But again, did you see the terms Trump announced? No change in the occupation, for 120 hours? Why would that be? Because in 5 days (120 hours), Erdogan is meeting with Putin in Russia! You don't see this as being consistent with my & Pelosi's narrative? The 120 hours is merely coincidental?Thanks for sharing your opinion. You haven't proved what I asked, but I'll take that into consideration that you were opining, and we'll both agree to disagree...
There's no proof that Trump got played by Putin..
Breaking: U.S. and Turkey have agreed to a ceasefire... Good news at least for now.
But again, did you see the terms Trump announced? No change in the occupation, for 120 hours? Why would that be? Because in 5 days (120 hours), Erdogan is meeting with Putin in Russia! You don't see this as being consistent with my & Pelosi's narrative? The 120 hours is merely coincidental?
And while I respect your being magnanimous - I do - greatly, I'm offering more than mere opinion here. Putin interacting with Trump and often benefiting from Trump's actions is well documented. The Mueller report has what? 110 separate contacts with Trump associates? Or was it 120? Regardless of the exact number, Putin's influence upon Trump is huge. Hell, Putin even had his people inside Trump Towers meeting with his campaign manager and Trump's closest family and advisers. Let's not forget Trump's campaign manager is sitting in jail for his efforts on Putin's behalf in the Ukraine. And now, Guiliani & Trump are working with (now jailed) former Russian nationals influence our upcoming election?
No - Pelosi is a 100% right here, and it's born of fact.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?