What has Pres. Trump done wrong so far.

smr wrote: At times in the past, Trump has been labeled a pedophile, a rapist, Nazis, a fascist, or many other appellations by your posts on the forum.

I see it's time for the latest episode in this forums favorite game.... "Ask smr to show where I said that" .

He IS a fascist. That one I said and I stand by.

He has supported and sympathized with Nazis but I didn't say he WAS one.

Never called him a pedophile. If you want to claim otherwise point at where I did it.

He is an ACCUSED rapist and I've said so. And an ADMITTED committer of sexual assault and I've said so. But I haven't said he WAS a rapist and if you want to claim otherwise show me where.

I'll wait. Indefinitely. While you fail, and avoid the question.

How can a person take the viewpoint that espoused by yourself about Trump without a grain of salt (more like a whole pool of salt!)?

Only one of us has a pathological history of making claims about other people he is totally unable to support. And we're about to watch you in action doing it again.

gcomeau wrote:

C. O. Thompson wrote:Why is it that a restriction on the FBI investigation at the height of the recent controversial hearing not considered obstruction of justice?

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/10/ ... mit-888667

That requires obstruction of a criminal inquiry I believe, not a background check.

If they had allowed a proper check to occur of course it might have *led* to a criminal inquiry... which is why they didn't allow things to get that far by blocking a proper investigation.

And sexual assault is not criminal?

C. O. Thompson wrote:

gcomeau wrote:That requires obstruction of a criminal inquiry I believe, not a background check.

If they had allowed a proper check to occur of course it might have *led* to a criminal inquiry... which is why they didn't allow things to get that far by blocking a proper investigation.

And sexual assault is not criminal?

If they had found sufficient evidence to initiate a criminal proceeding, yes.

But it has to reach that stage before you can really start nailing anyone on an obstruction charge. And the GOP were dead set on not letting things get that far.

Actually GC, I can list one reason to limit the investigation that way.

Time.

Of course, that raises a whole bunch of red flags by itself.

It's probably me that he's thinking about with calling Trump a paedophile*, and Trump probably is.


*That is of course using the grossly generalised definition of paedophillia. More properly Trump is probably a hebephile or ephebophile. Or both.

Annachie wrote:Actually GC, I can list one reason to limit the investigation that way.

Time.

Of course, that raises a whole bunch of red flags by itself.

And they could have put a time limit in *without* a restriction on what they could look at within that time limit and let the professional investigators decide what was the best use of their limited time.

But they didn't. They put a time limit on AND extremely restrictive limits on what they were allowed to spend the week they were limited to looking at.

Rolling on the Floor laughing at your Antics

That was funny...your disputing a couple of different appellations. That brought tears to my eyes...Thank You!
Typical example of being a rules lawyer. I think you got my point.

gcomeau wrote:

smr wrote: At times in the past, Trump has been labeled a pedophile, a rapist, Nazis, a fascist, or many other appellations by your posts on the forum.

I see it's time for the latest episode in this forums favorite game.... "Ask smr to show where I said that" .

He IS a fascist. That one I said and I stand by.

He has supported and sympathized with Nazis but I didn't say he WAS one.

Never called him a pedophile. If you want to claim otherwise point at where I did it.

He is an ACCUSED rapist and I've said so. And an ADMITTED committer of sexual assault and I've said so. But I haven't said he WAS a rapist and if you want to claim otherwise show me where.

I'll wait. Indefinitely. While you fail, and avoid the question.

How can a person take the viewpoint that espoused by yourself about Trump without a grain of salt (more like a whole pool of salt!)?

Only one of us has a pathological history of making claims about other people he is totally unable to support. And we're about to watch you in action doing it again.

smr wrote:Rolling on the Floor laughing at your Antics

That was funny...your disputing a couple of different appellations. That brought tears to my eyes...Thank You!
Typical example of being a rules lawyer. I think you got my point

If your point was "I constantly make false claims about what other posters said" then yes, got it loud and clear.

Sorry that you missed the point but it's your pathological hatred of anything to do with Trump and your diatribes about Trump make me doubt your logical clear thinking. That's saying alot when it comes from me.

gcomeau wrote:

smr wrote:Rolling on the Floor laughing at your Antics

That was funny...your disputing a couple of different appellations. That brought tears to my eyes...Thank You!
Typical example of being a rules lawyer. I think you got my point

If your point was "I constantly make false claims about what other posters said" then yes, got it loud and clear.

smr wrote:Sorry that you missed the point but it's your pathological hatred of anything to do with Trump and your diatribes about Trump make me doubt your logical clear thinking. That's saying alot when it comes from me.

You do understand you just insulted yourself right?

As for my diatribes about Trump...if you were ever able to refute any of them I might take your claim they were grounds to doubt my clear logical thinking more seriously.