WWTBAM Bored

Bob78164 wrote:

flockofseagulls104 wrote:

Bob78164 wrote:So you don't care whether Donny abides by the Constitution. A portion of the Constitution, by the way, specifically designed to ensure that federal officials couldn't be bribed by foreign governments. Got it. --Bob

bob-tel, why would trump need to take bribes? He's already a billionaire, or close to it. And he donates his salary. You were talking about emoluments before he was even sworn in. You hate trump and will do anything to get him out of office and disgraced, no matter how stupid and juvenile. Got it.

Oh, and if you are so concerned about Presidents benefitting financially from holding office, I have never heard anyone explain to me how a community activist, turned state legislator, turned backbench senator turned president could accumulate a net worth of $12 million. Politics is apparently profitable.

None of this is an answer to my question. Donny is obviously violating the Constitution. Do you care or not? --Bob

The brief answer is no, in this case, I don't care, because I don't think it's obvious at all, and the people who are outraged about it are using it as a political tool. You cry wolf at everything, and no one believes you if you actually see one, bob-tel.

Now that answers your question. bob-tel. Are you happy? Can you move on?

flockofseagulls104 wrote:

Bob78164 wrote:

flockofseagulls104 wrote:
Here's my concern expressed graphically:

So you don't care whether Donny abides by the Constitution. A portion of the Constitution, by the way, specifically designed to ensure that federal officials couldn't be bribed by foreign governments. Got it. --Bob

bob-tel, why would trump need to take bribes? He's already a billionaire, or close to it. And he donates his salary. You were talking about emoluments before he was even sworn in. You hate trump and will do anything to get him out of office and disgraced, no matter how stupid and juvenile. Got it.

Oh, and if you are so concerned about Presidents benefitting financially from holding office, I have never heard anyone explain to me how a community activist, turned state legislator, turned backbench senator turned president could accumulate a net worth of $12 million. Politics is apparently profitable.

How do you know trump's a billionaire? What proof do you have? I think he's deeply in debt.

BackInTex wrote:

Bob78164 wrote: A portion of the Constitution, by the way, specifically designed to ensure that federal officials couldn't be bribed by foreign governments. Got it. --Bob

You mean like a Secretary of State who's family runs a foundation, that while she was SoS the foundation received hundreds of millions of dollars in donations from foreign governnents and then those donations dried up once her position of influence ceased? Yeah, no evidence. Arms length. Got it.

Unlike the trumps, the Clintons donate to their foundation. They don't use their foundation's money to pay lawyers.

How do you know trump's a billionaire? What proof do you have? I think he's deeply in debt.

How do you know trump's deeply in debt? What proof do you have? I think he's a billionaire.

flockofseagulls104 wrote:

Bob78164 wrote:And by the way, we have actual evidence that Donny publicly told the Russians to release the Democrats' e-mails and we have actual evidence that after Donny made that request publicly, the Russians actually did exactly that. That sure looks like collusion to me. Where is your evidence that Donny was only joking? I don't want inferences or what you think. I want actual evidence. --Bob

I'm confused, bob-tel. I looked around for video of trump doing what you said he did. And sure enough, I found a video of him saying “Russia, if you’re listening, I hope you’re able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing, I think you will probably be rewarded mightily by our press.”

Is that the one you are referring to?

If so, I think you're mistaken. What was released before the election were emails from John "PASSWORD" Podesta, not Clinton. As far as I know, no one has yet recovered the emails regarding yoga classes that Hillary so thoroughly got rid of.

But I don't follow everything down to the last detail. I could be wrong.

And by the way, what looks like proof to you is really called 'circumstantial evidence'. I don't believe that kind of stuff can be used in a real court, unless, of course, there are kangaroos running it.

Of course circumstantial evidence can be used in court. People get the death penalty based on circumstantial evidence.

But there's nothing circumstantial about whether Donny said what he said. And there's nothing circumstantial about whether the e-mails were released. You're the one who's claiming that this statement doesn't constitute collusion. So prove that Donny didn't mean what he said. I don't want your guesses or your inferences. I want your proof. --Bob

flockofseagulls104 wrote:

Bob78164 wrote:

flockofseagulls104 wrote: bob-tel, why would trump need to take bribes? He's already a billionaire, or close to it. And he donates his salary. You were talking about emoluments before he was even sworn in. You hate trump and will do anything to get him out of office and disgraced, no matter how stupid and juvenile. Got it.

Oh, and if you are so concerned about Presidents benefitting financially from holding office, I have never heard anyone explain to me how a community activist, turned state legislator, turned backbench senator turned president could accumulate a net worth of $12 million. Politics is apparently profitable.

None of this is an answer to my question. Donny is obviously violating the Constitution. Do you care or not? --Bob

The brief answer is no, in this case, I don't care, because I don't think it's obvious at all, and the people who are outraged about it are using it as a political tool. You cry wolf at everything, and no one believes you if you actually see one, bob-tel.

Now that answers your question. bob-tel. Are you happy? Can you move on?

Got it. You were up in arms about your belief that President Obama was violating the Constitution (and of course, the people making that claim didn't have a political bone in their bodies) but you don't think that Donny should have to obey the Constitution. And I could be misremembering, but I think you were one of the people who was mighty interested in President Obama's long-form birth certificate. Why is it more important to obey the provision of the Constitution requiring the President to be a native-born citizen (which President Obama's election did) than to obey the Emoluments Clause? --Bob

Bob78164 wrote:

flockofseagulls104 wrote:

Bob78164 wrote:And by the way, we have actual evidence that Donny publicly told the Russians to release the Democrats' e-mails and we have actual evidence that after Donny made that request publicly, the Russians actually did exactly that. That sure looks like collusion to me. Where is your evidence that Donny was only joking? I don't want inferences or what you think. I want actual evidence. --Bob

I'm confused, bob-tel. I looked around for video of trump doing what you said he did. And sure enough, I found a video of him saying “Russia, if you’re listening, I hope you’re able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing, I think you will probably be rewarded mightily by our press.”

Is that the one you are referring to?

If so, I think you're mistaken. What was released before the election were emails from John "PASSWORD" Podesta, not Clinton. As far as I know, no one has yet recovered the emails regarding yoga classes that Hillary so thoroughly got rid of.

But I don't follow everything down to the last detail. I could be wrong.

And by the way, what looks like proof to you is really called 'circumstantial evidence'. I don't believe that kind of stuff can be used in a real court, unless, of course, there are kangaroos running it.

Of course circumstantial evidence can be used in court. People get the death penalty based on circumstantial evidence.

But there's nothing circumstantial about whether Donny said what he said. And there's nothing circumstantial about whether the e-mails were released. You're the one who's claiming that this statement doesn't constitute collusion. So prove that Donny didn't mean what he said. I don't want your guesses or your inferences. I want your proof. --Bob

Try getting a jury of impartial jurors to convict on your circumstantial evidence bob-tel. You are getting more laughable every post. And btw, You ask for proof, and I gave you what I found earlier, but you didn't read it, as usual.

Bob78164 wrote: But there's nothing circumstantial about whether Donny said what he said. And there's nothing circumstantial about whether the e-mails were released.

Well, according to Comey, if there wasn't intent to break the law, he's O.K.

Bob78164 wrote:

flockofseagulls104 wrote:

Bob78164 wrote:None of this is an answer to my question. Donny is obviously violating the Constitution. Do you care or not? --Bob

The brief answer is no, in this case, I don't care, because I don't think it's obvious at all, and the people who are outraged about it are using it as a political tool. You cry wolf at everything, and no one believes you if you actually see one, bob-tel.

Now that answers your question. bob-tel. Are you happy? Can you move on?

Got it. You were up in arms about your belief that President Obama was violating the Constitution (and of course, the people making that claim didn't have a political bone in their bodies) but you don't think that Donny should have to obey the Constitution. And I could be misremembering, but I think you were one of the people who was mighty interested in President Obama's long-form birth certificate. Why is it more important to obey the provision of the Constitution requiring the President to be a native-born citizen (which President Obama's election did) than to obey the Emoluments Clause? --Bob

Yes you are misremembering, but that's to be expected when you reference the post where I gave proof your claim is full of holes, and ask me for proof. You, like SSS, like to put people in your own little boxes.

flockofseagulls104 wrote:

Bob78164 wrote:

flockofseagulls104 wrote:
I'm confused, bob-tel. I looked around for video of trump doing what you said he did. And sure enough, I found a video of him saying “Russia, if you’re listening, I hope you’re able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing, I think you will probably be rewarded mightily by our press.”

Is that the one you are referring to?

If so, I think you're mistaken. What was released before the election were emails from John "PASSWORD" Podesta, not Clinton. As far as I know, no one has yet recovered the emails regarding yoga classes that Hillary so thoroughly got rid of.

But I don't follow everything down to the last detail. I could be wrong.

And by the way, what looks like proof to you is really called 'circumstantial evidence'. I don't believe that kind of stuff can be used in a real court, unless, of course, there are kangaroos running it.

Of course circumstantial evidence can be used in court. People get the death penalty based on circumstantial evidence.

But there's nothing circumstantial about whether Donny said what he said. And there's nothing circumstantial about whether the e-mails were released. You're the one who's claiming that this statement doesn't constitute collusion. So prove that Donny didn't mean what he said. I don't want your guesses or your inferences. I want your proof. --Bob

Try getting a jury of impartial jurors to convict on your circumstantial evidence bob-tel. You are getting more laughable every post. And btw, You ask for proof, and I gave you what I found earlier, but you didn't read it, as usual.

You only responded to the last sentence in my post. I take that as proof you are a knee-jerker. You didn't even bother to read the main point of the post. You completely ignored it, which you do all the time when you don't have an answer.

flockofseagulls104 wrote:why would trump need to take bribes? He's already a billionaire, or close to it. And he donates his salary.

There are plenty of rich people in jail who got even greedier. And I'd donate my salary too if I was getting millions from the presidency.

And for someone who again says he's no Trump supporter, you once again leap to his defense.

flockofseagulls104 wrote:
Let's wait until we know what he's been doing with all the time and money he's cost us before we make a decision on how it measures up to watergate.

So far 22 indictments, five guilty pleas and Manafort set for trial.

Bob Juch wrote: Unlike the trumps, the Clintons donate to their foundation. They don't use their foundation's money to pay lawyers.

Or porn actresses.

silverscreenselect wrote:

flockofseagulls104 wrote:
Let's wait until we know what he's been doing with all the time and money he's cost us before we make a decision on how it measures up to watergate.

So far 22 indictments, five guilty pleas and Manafort set for trial.

Are you counting the indictment against the company that doesn't exist?

flockofseagulls104 wrote:

How do you know trump's a billionaire? What proof do you have? I think he's deeply in debt.

How do you know trump's deeply in debt? What proof do you have? I think he's a billionaire.

I don't have any more proof than you do that he's a billionaire.

Bob Juch wrote:

flockofseagulls104 wrote:

How do you know trump's a billionaire? What proof do you have? I think he's deeply in debt.

How do you know trump's deeply in debt? What proof do you have? I think he's a billionaire.

I don't have any more proof than you do that he's a billionaire.

Exactly. So why did you even ask, housefly?

BackInTex wrote: Are you counting the indictment against the company that doesn't exist?

The "evidence" that the company (Concord Catering) doesn't exist is a statement to that effect by an attorney who is representing one of the other Russian companies (Concord Management) and who put in a court appearance on behalf of that other company last week. Absent anyone claiming to represent Concord Catering, the judge didn't arraign them.

That is not a ruling by a judge that the company doesn't exist (in fact there is a good bit of evidence that the company has been in existence for some 20 years). It's a statement by a defense attorney. As usual, the right wing media picks up on nonsense like this and turns it into some sort of proof that Mueller messed up.

Since Concord Management did put in an appearance through its attorney (who has asked for a speedy trial), we'll get to see what cards Mueller has. And his track record in the only contested case so far, the Manafort case, is excellent. Every ruling that has been made has gone in his favor. That's one reason Mueller is taking so long assembling airtight cases. If Manafort puts up this big a stink, you can imagine what the attorneys for Trump Jrl, Kushner, Roger Stone, and the others are going to do.

silverscreenselect wrote:

Bob Juch wrote: Unlike the trumps, the Clintons donate to their foundation. They don't use their foundation's money to pay lawyers.

Or porn actresses.

I wouldn't go there, SSS. Blue dresses and all....

Bob78164 wrote:

flockofseagulls104 wrote:

Bob78164 wrote:None of this is an answer to my question. Donny is obviously violating the Constitution. Do you care or not? --Bob

The brief answer is no, in this case, I don't care, because I don't think it's obvious at all, and the people who are outraged about it are using it as a political tool. You cry wolf at everything, and no one believes you if you actually see one, bob-tel.

Now that answers your question. bob-tel. Are you happy? Can you move on?

Got it. You were up in arms about your belief that President Obama was violating the Constitution (and of course, the people making that claim didn't have a political bone in their bodies) but you don't think that Donny should have to obey the Constitution. And I could be misremembering, but I think you were one of the people who was mighty interested in President Obama's long-form birth certificate. Why is it more important to obey the provision of the Constitution requiring the President to be a native-born citizen (which President Obama's election did) than to obey the Emoluments Clause? --Bob

Now it's you who are doing the whataboutism thing you always bring up when you don't have an answer. I answered this question a long time ago as well, but you ignored it. Any person in private business that becomes President can be accused of this emoluments thing by partisan idiots. Are private business people barred from running for President, bob-tel? Go ahead and try and get him impeached on it, bob-tel. It's both laughable and pathetic.

silverscreenselect wrote:

flockofseagulls104 wrote:why would trump need to take bribes? He's already a billionaire, or close to it. And he donates his salary.

There are plenty of rich people in jail who got even greedier. And I'd donate my salary too if I was getting millions from the presidency.

And for someone who again says he's no Trump supporter, you once again leap to his defense.

Why are you so intent on putting me in your 'Trump Supporter' box? What does it matter? As I've told you several times, I support trump when I think he's right, and oppose him when I think he's wrong. That's what reasonable people do. Yet you persist on thinking 'trump supporter' is an epithet or insult of some sort. If you want to put me in that box, go ahead. It doesn't change anything. Except in your mind.

You and bob-tel do the same thing. You put together your rants against trump or republicans, we respond and make points of our own. You never address the points we made, and next time the subject comes up, it's like we never had the discussion before.

And I'll tell you what, SSS. I'll go into any frickin identity box you want to put me in. If you choose to believe I parrot everything hannity says, when I've told you dozens of times that I rarely listen or watch his show, go right ahead. And anybody else for that matter. My opinions won't change. So you can assume when you're arguing with me, my words are coming from whomever you dream up that day. So you don't need to use that deflection technique anymore, unless you want to look more like a drone.

flockofseagulls104 wrote:

Bob78164 wrote:

flockofseagulls104 wrote:
The brief answer is no, in this case, I don't care, because I don't think it's obvious at all, and the people who are outraged about it are using it as a political tool. You cry wolf at everything, and no one believes you if you actually see one, bob-tel.

Now that answers your question. bob-tel. Are you happy? Can you move on?

Got it. You were up in arms about your belief that President Obama was violating the Constitution (and of course, the people making that claim didn't have a political bone in their bodies) but you don't think that Donny should have to obey the Constitution. And I could be misremembering, but I think you were one of the people who was mighty interested in President Obama's long-form birth certificate. Why is it more important to obey the provision of the Constitution requiring the President to be a native-born citizen (which President Obama's election did) than to obey the Emoluments Clause? --Bob

Now it's you who are doing the whataboutism thing you always bring up when you don't have an answer. I answered this question a long time ago as well, but you ignored it. Any person in private business that becomes President can be accused of this emoluments thing by partisan idiots. Are private business people barred from running for President, bob-tel? Go ahead and try and get him impeached on it, bob-tel. It's both laughable and pathetic.

All they have to do is what every previous President with private holdings has done -- put them in a blind trust. In this context, blind trusts aren't just a good idea. They're the law. That, or divestiture of all businesses that derive revenue from foreign (or state) governments.

But you've made yourself clear. You don't care that Donny is violating the Constitution. So I'll be reminding you of your disinterest the next time you try complaining that a Democratic President's policy initiatives violate the Constitution. --Bob

flockofseagulls104 wrote:

Bob Juch wrote:

flockofseagulls104 wrote:
How do you know trump's deeply in debt? What proof do you have? I think he's a billionaire.

I don't have any more proof than you do that he's a billionaire.

Exactly. So why did you even ask, housefly?

To show that your belief is not factual.

flockofseagulls104 wrote:

silverscreenselect wrote:

flockofseagulls104 wrote:why would trump need to take bribes? He's already a billionaire, or close to it. And he donates his salary.

There are plenty of rich people in jail who got even greedier. And I'd donate my salary too if I was getting millions from the presidency.

And for someone who again says he's no Trump supporter, you once again leap to his defense.

Why are you so intent on putting me in your 'Trump Supporter' box? What does it matter? As I've told you several times, I support trump when I think he's right, and oppose him when I think he's wrong. That's what reasonable people do. Yet you persist on thinking 'trump supporter' is an epithet or insult of some sort. If you want to put me in that box, go ahead. It doesn't change anything. Except in your mind.

You and bob-tel do the same thing. You put together your rants against trump or republicans, we respond and make points of our own. You never address the points we made, and next time the subject comes up, it's like we never had the discussion before.

And I'll tell you what, SSS. I'll go into any frickin identity box you want to put me in. If you choose to believe I parrot everything hannity says, when I've told you dozens of times that I rarely listen or watch his show, go right ahead. And anybody else for that matter. My opinions won't change. So you can assume when you're arguing with me, my words are coming from whomever you dream up that day. So you don't need to use that deflection technique anymore, unless you want to look more like a drone.

You are always defending trump. I have yet to see a post from you condemning him for anything.

You are always defending trump. I have yet to see a post from you condemning him for anything.

You are always condemning trump. I have yet to see a post from you praising him for anything.

Bob Juch wrote:

flockofseagulls104 wrote:

Bob Juch wrote: I don't have any more proof than you do that he's a billionaire.

Exactly. So why did you even ask, housefly?

To show that your belief is not factual.