PDA

View Full Version : Warning: Official tPF State of the Union prediction thread



Bo-4
02-05-2019, 11:37 AM
Closest guess on all three questions wins the Internet - I'll bestow the final judging honors on Mr Utley.

1. Exactly how many minutes in do we go from Teleprompter Kumbaya Don to Stream of Consciousness Don?
2. How many times will Stream of Consciousness, Untethered Don thrust forth a belittling nickname such as "Pocahontas" or "Crooked Hillary" ??
3. Will he declare a "National Emergency" on the border???

To be fair, I'll go first:

1. At the 12 minute mark, he goes rogue and turns it into a campaign rally with an official "Airing of Grievances". 12 minutes is the outer limit of his prompter concentration and ability to act presidential - - *AOC then enters stage left and strategically places the Festivus pole ;-)
2. We'll get only one of his patented, belittling nicknames .. Audible groans will ensue
3. Trump will absolutely go all "National Emergency" - He's stuck between a rock and a hard place having lost the debate on his big, beautiful, stupid vanity slats that normal Americans don't want. This is why he's sending another 3,750 troops to the border to roll out more concertina wire. Gotta make it at least LOOK like a certifiable "emergency"

Our lucky Internet winner will also be the recipient of a champagne glass filled with Baby Trump Tears™ :D

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DTv68uqU8AAU8ZN.jpg

DGUtley
02-05-2019, 11:40 AM
Clarification requested -- when you inquire about National Emergency, he's already said that. Are you asking whether he'll declare a NE to enable him to build the wall without Congressional Authority (as some claim he can)?

Bo-4
02-05-2019, 11:44 AM
Clarification requested -- when you inquire about National Emergency, he's already said that. Are you asking whether he'll declare a NE to enable him to build the wall without Congressional Authority (as some claim he can)?

Oh yes, I'm asking whether he actually declares it tonight in an attempt to circumvent congressional authority. Some my claim he can do it, the courts won't and Mitch has warned him not to or Congress may act. He doesn't care. This will give him cover with "the base" ;-)

nathanbforrest45
02-05-2019, 11:55 AM
Hey, if you already know what he is going to say and you don't like it I would suggest you either watch something else like a PBS Special on the Siberian Trunk Monkey decline or go to bed early.

Disgusting little dweeb.

Captdon
02-05-2019, 11:56 AM
Oh yes, I'm asking whether he actually declares it tonight in an attempt to circumvent congressional authority. Some my claim he can do it, the courts won't and Mitch has warned him not to or Congress may act. He doesn't care. This will give him cover with "the base" ;-)

No, he will wait until Feb 16.

He has congressional consent to declare it.

Congress won't do anything about it except cry or authorize the wall. You won't get 10 republican Senators to override his veto.

Bo-4
02-05-2019, 12:04 PM
Hey, if you already know what he is going to say and you don't like it I would suggest you either watch something else like a PBS Special on the Siberian Trunk Monkey decline or go to bed early.

Disgusting little dweeb.

Nah, I'm a glutton for world class entertainment. Plus, I greatly look forward to Stacey Abrams' rebuttal!

Regards, -Disgusting Little Dweeb :)

Bo-4
02-05-2019, 12:06 PM
No, he will wait until Feb 16.

He has congressional consent to declare it.

Congress won't do anything about it except cry or authorize the wall. You won't get 10 republican Senators to override his veto.

Ehh no, he does not have nor will he get "congressional consent" or legal consent from judges.

Bo-4
02-05-2019, 03:29 PM
As predicted, Donald is setting the stage for a "National Emergency" announcement tonight.

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1092787440560078849

DGUtley
02-05-2019, 04:48 PM
I hope he doesn't do it like I had hoped that Harry wouldn't go nuclear. It's not good for our system. The R's took Harry's Nuclear to the Supremes, it wasn't good. If Trump does this (and he may, and may get away with it) it won't be good for our system and separation of powers. I held a .0001% hope that they would find a compromise. They hate each other and need a win too much.

Bo-4
02-05-2019, 04:53 PM
I hope he doesn't do it like I had hoped that Harry wouldn't go nuclear. It's not good for our system. The R's took Harry's Nuclear to the Supremes, it wasn't good. If Trump does this (and he may, and may get away with it) it won't be good for our system and separation of powers. I held a .0001% hope that they would find a compromise. They hate each other and need a win too much.

The precedent would be awesome wouldn't it? Like the next time a Dem president calls a "national emergency" on climate change or wealth inequality ...

I mean, you know, the possibilities are endless. ;-)

Cletus
02-05-2019, 04:54 PM
Oh yes, I'm asking whether he actually declares it tonight in an attempt to circumvent congressional authority. Some my claim he can do it, the courts won't and Mitch has warned him not to or Congress may act. He doesn't care. This will give him cover with "the base" ;-)
I don't believe the Courts have anything to say about it. The power lies with the Executive. Congress might move to block it, but it is not in the Court's rice bowl.

Bo-4
02-05-2019, 05:20 PM
I don't believe the Courts have anything to say about it. The power lies with the Executive. Congress might move to block it, but it is not in the Court's rice bowl.

Most legal experts disagree with you Cletus.

Certainly the president (in the horribly defined terms under the Act) has the "right" to declare such about anything.

However, whether he can circumvent congress to do so is dubious at best.

https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/424851-legal-obstacles-await-national-emergency-declaration-for-wall

Ask yourself this: Do you want the next D POTUS (and yes, there WILL be one ;-) to declare such in order to deal with climate change or wealth inequality or whatever the hell else he wishes?

Be careful what you wish for .. and THIS IMHO is why McConnell took the trouble to warn him NOT to do so or face action by congress.

DGUtley
02-05-2019, 05:32 PM
The precedent would be awesome wouldn't it? Like the next time a Dem president calls a "national emergency" on climate change or wealth inequality … I mean, you know, the possibilities are endless. ;-)

Endless. . . . .as in end of the republic if we go down that path. Personally, I think we started down that path with the power they gave Obama (think Obamacare and his ability to change the statute to his whim) but Trump hasn't expanded beyond that - yet. While I think we should build the wall, I am against this type of move. I am also against pulling the goalie in the Senate and making it a 51 vote cloture rule. There will be D presidents and other R Presidents -- as I said during Obama's reign: never take more power for yourself than you're willing to give to your worst enemy. Harry didn't listen. We have courts for reasons.

Cletus
02-05-2019, 05:39 PM
Most legal experts disagree with you Cletus.

They would be wrong.


Certainly the president (in the horribly defined terms under the Act) has the "right" to declare such about anything.

However, whether he can circumvent congress to do so is dubious at best.

Who said anything about circumventing Congress? If the power is granted the Executive, there is no "circumventing". It is an exercise of Executive power. If Congress wants to place limits on that power and the power is statutory and not constitutionally granted, they can attempt to enact legislation to do so.



Ask yourself this: Do you want the next D POTUS (and yes, there WILL be one ;-) to declare such in order to deal with climate change or wealth inequality or whatever the hell else he wishes?

I don't really care. If a future President tries to enact something stupid and unconstitutional... and if he is a Democrat, that is almost certain, I will simply ignore him and not comply.


Be careful what you wish for .. and THIS IMHO is why McConnell took the trouble to warn him NOT to do so or face action by congress.

I am not wishing for anything except the complete and total destruction of modern Liberalism and its adherents in this country. The sooner they cease to exist, the better off this nation and the world will be.

Bo-4
02-05-2019, 05:51 PM
If a future President tries to enact something stupid and unconstitutional... and if he is a Democrat, that is almost certain, I will simply ignore him and not comply.

Cool, and your personal ignore will mean what in the grand scheme of things?


I am not wishing for anything except the complete and total destruction of modern Liberalism and its adherents in this country. The sooner they cease to exist, the better off this nation and the world will be.

OOOOKay and once you destroy your enemies .. what then?

Sounds like authoritarianism in the spirit of Duterte, Putin, Erdogan, Baby Kim ORRR possibly even Maduro?

I reject such, including Donald's wet dream of unfettered/unquestioned rule.

Cletus
02-05-2019, 05:58 PM
Cool, and your personal ignore will mean what in the grand scheme of things?


The only thing that matters is what it means to me. what it means to me is that I don't care what laws you pass, you are not going to prevent me from doing what I think is right.




OOOOKay and once you destroy your enemies .. what then?

I'll have a cookie and a cigar.


Sounds like authoritarianism in the spirit of Duterte, Putin, Erdogan, Baby Kim ORRR possibly even Maduro?

It may sound like that to you, but then... you are you.


[I reject such, including Donald's wet dream of unfettered/unquestioned rule.

I dopn't know that he has any such dreams and if he does, I doubt your rejection is going to bother him much.

Max Rockatansky
02-05-2019, 06:25 PM
I don't believe the Courts have anything to say about it. The power lies with the Executive. Congress might move to block it, but it is not in the Court's rice bowl.
Not a Constitutional scholar, but I think you are wrong. The Courts do have a say in it if Trump exceeds his powers. Obviously the Executive branch has powers just as the Legislative and Judicial branches have powers.

Cletus
02-05-2019, 06:37 PM
Not a Constitutional scholar, but I think you are wrong. The Courts do have a say in it if Trump exceeds his powers.

Exceeding his powers means going beyond what the constitution or federal statutes empower him to do. If the law does in fact empower him to do something and he does it, even if it is unpopular with some segment of the population, the Courts have nothing to say about it. The argument people are making is not so much that he CAN'T do it as he SHOULDN'T do it. There is a big difference between the two.

Personally, I don't think he should take that route, either. I think he should just have continued to refuse to sign the budget until Congress did the right thing and fund the wall.





Obviously the Executive branch has powers just as the Legislative and Judicial branches have powers.

Really? That is kind of cool.

Constitutionally, the Judicial Branch has relatively little power. Most of the power they have, they stole and the other two branches are just too cowardly to put them back in their place.

slackercruster
02-05-2019, 07:14 PM
OP, dunno. But from what I hear, Trump has pussed out and is a shadow of his former self. So not expecting much from him.

Captdon
02-05-2019, 07:17 PM
Ehh no, he does not have nor will he get "congressional consent" or legal consent from judges.

Eh, it's the law. Congress won't muster the votes to stop him. He doesn't need Congressional consent. It is the law. They can vote to stop it but there isn't enough Senate support for that.

SCOTUS will rule that he is following the law.

Bo-4
02-05-2019, 07:21 PM
Eh, it's the law. Congress won't muster the votes to stop him. He doesn't need Congressional consent. It is the law. They can vote to stop it but there isn't enough Senate support for that.

SCOTUS will rule that he is following the law.

No, in this case the law is VAGUE to say the very least.

Congress TOTALLY can and will stop him from using military funds for a non-military purpose.

And if they don't, SCOTUS will.

Ransom
02-05-2019, 07:32 PM
Bo-4.....yer starting a prediction thread? You remember your election predictions, yes?

Bo-4
02-05-2019, 07:40 PM
Bo-4.....yer starting a prediction thread? You remember your election predictions, yes?

You mean 2016 - the one EVERYBODY got wrong because nobody had any clue the degree of Russian influence Uncle Ransom?

Or 2018 .. the one in which I predicted a 40 seat flip in the House?

:D

hanger4
02-05-2019, 08:01 PM
You mean 2016 - the one EVERYBODY got wrong because nobody had any clue the degree of Russian influence Uncle Ransom?No, the 2016 Presidential race where the HRC Campaign ignored some swing states via over confidence or ignorance and lost.

Trish
02-05-2019, 08:06 PM
Closest guess on all three questions wins the Internet - I'll bestow the final judging honors on Mr Utley.

1. Exactly how many minutes in do we go from Teleprompter Kumbaya Don to Stream of Consciousness Don?
2. How many times will Stream of Consciousness, Untethered Don thrust forth a belittling nickname such as "Pocahontas" or "Crooked Hillary" ??
3. Will he declare a "National Emergency" on the border???

To be fair, I'll go first:

1. At the 12 minute mark, he goes rogue and turns it into a campaign rally with an official "Airing of Grievances". 12 minutes is the outer limit of his prompter concentration and ability to act presidential - - *AOC then enters stage left and strategically places the Festivus pole ;-)
2. We'll get only one of his patented, belittling nicknames .. Audible groans will ensue
3. Trump will absolutely go all "National Emergency" - He's stuck between a rock and a hard place having lost the debate on his big, beautiful, stupid vanity slats that normal Americans don't want. This is why he's sending another 3,750 troops to the border to roll out more concertina wire. Gotta make it at least LOOK like a certifiable "emergency"

Our lucky Internet winner will also be the recipient of a champagne glass filled with Baby Trump Tears™ :D



1. Exactly how many minutes in do we go from Teleprompter Kumbaya Don to Stream of Consciousness Don? I'm voting for 48 min 32 sec
2. How many times will Stream of Consciousness, Untethered Don thrust forth a belittling nickname such as "Pocahontas" or "Crooked Hillary" ?? 0 but he will demean immigrants and democrats
3. Will he declare a "National Emergency" on the border??? I........don't know. He's so unpredictable. What the hell, I say no, he'll continue threatening a national emergency.

Ethereal
02-05-2019, 08:24 PM
The precedent would be awesome wouldn't it? Like the next time a Dem president calls a "national emergency" on climate change or wealth inequality ...

I mean, you know, the possibilities are endless. ;-)
Such precedents have already been established by presidents like Lincoln, Wilson, and FDR.

DGUtley
02-05-2019, 08:58 PM
He won’t demean immigrants but he may demean illegal aliens. Democrats? Probably.

Max Rockatansky
02-05-2019, 09:19 PM
Exceeding his powers means going beyond what the constitution or federal statutes empower him to do. ....
Correct. That's what it means.

Max Rockatansky
02-05-2019, 09:30 PM
I'd only had two shots until he started talking about "partisan investigations". Now I'm skipping the shot glass and just chugging the bottle.

Hoosier8
02-05-2019, 09:41 PM
No, in this case the law is VAGUE to say the very least.

Congress TOTALLY can and will stop him from using military funds for a non-military purpose.

And if they don't, SCOTUS will.

Defending America’s own borders is unconstitutional? Go figure.

Trish
02-05-2019, 10:14 PM
I'd only had two shots until he started talking about "partisan investigations". Now I'm skipping the shot glass and just chugging the bottle.

Pass it over Bob.

MisterVeritis
02-05-2019, 10:54 PM
You mean 2016 - the one EVERYBODY got wrong because nobody had any clue the degree of Russian influence Uncle Ransom?

Or 2018 .. the one in which I predicted a 40 seat flip in the House?

:D
I was right. You lied.

Nowhere Man
02-06-2019, 01:59 AM
No, in this case the law is VAGUE to say the very least.
Congress TOTALLY can and will stop him from using military funds for a non-military purpose.
And if they don't, SCOTUS will.
Which law?
Does anyone remember the Patriot Act? passed by congress for Georgie the 2nd and enhanced by congress for Obama twice?
Ya'll forget that?

He doesn't need congress and the courts cannot stop him he already has the authority under a very specific set of circumstances....

One of the things I've been wondering about is why he's playing this silly power game with congress....

Nowhere Man
02-06-2019, 02:04 AM
1. Exactly how many minutes in do we go from Teleprompter Kumbaya Don to Stream of Consciousness Don?
2. How many times will Stream of Consciousness, Untethered Don thrust forth a belittling nickname such as "Pocahontas" or "Crooked Hillary" ??
3. Will he declare a "National Emergency" on the border???
And, he did NONE of those......
So much for predictions..... :greatjob:

Tahuyaman
02-06-2019, 02:07 AM
If Trump would consistently speak in the manner he did tonight, he'd be a lock for reelection.

Tahuyaman
02-06-2019, 02:11 AM
Which law?
Does anyone remember the Patriot Act? passed by congress for Georgie the 2nd and enhanced by congress for Obama twice?
Ya'll forget that?

He doesn't need congress and the courts cannot stop him he already has the authority under a very specific set of circumstances....

One of the things I've been wondering about is why he's playing this silly power game with congress....
On your first two sentences, you're right.

How should he deal with the congress? Just bend over like Republicans usually do?

Nowhere Man
02-06-2019, 03:54 AM
On your first two sentences, you're right.
How should he deal with the congress? Just bend over like Republicans usually do?
He's been playing them like a concert pianist for almost three years now..... What I saw, was an almost entire congress standing up and giving him ovations.....
He's setting them up for something... but I can't for the life of me figure out what....

Peter1469
02-06-2019, 04:54 AM
The precedent would be awesome wouldn't it? Like the next time a Dem president calls a "national emergency" on climate change or wealth inequality ...

I mean, you know, the possibilities are endless. ;-)
Obama declared a national emergency to send military equipment to Ukraine.

Peter1469
02-06-2019, 05:00 AM
Most legal experts disagree with you Cletus.

Certainly the president (in the horribly defined terms under the Act) has the "right" to declare such about anything.

However, whether he can circumvent congress to do so is dubious at best.

https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/424851-legal-obstacles-await-national-emergency-declaration-for-wall

Ask yourself this: Do you want the next D POTUS (and yes, there WILL be one ;-) to declare such in order to deal with climate change or wealth inequality or whatever the hell else he wishes?

Be careful what you wish for .. and THIS IMHO is why McConnell took the trouble to warn him NOT to do so or face action by congress.
There is not much for a court to review. IF the NEA had a definition for national emergency, the courts could see whether the President's use of the term was reasonable or an abuse of discretion. But that term is not defined- a court cannot provide one of its own to judge the president's use of the NEA on.

It looks like the only remedy is contained within the NEA- a Joint Resolution of Congress against the President's order.

Peter1469
02-06-2019, 05:05 AM
No, in this case the law is VAGUE to say the very least.

Congress TOTALLY can and will stop him from using military funds for a non-military purpose.

And if they don't, SCOTUS will.
That is not relevant. The NEA allows the president to declare a national emergency. National emergency is not defined. Another statute allows the President to shift funds allocated to the US Army Corps of Engineers for major military construction projects to the object of the national emergency. That statute does not require the objective of the national emergency to be military in nature.

Peter1469
02-06-2019, 05:07 AM
I'd only had two shots until he started talking about "partisan investigations". Now I'm skipping the shot glass and just chugging the bottle.

A TDS attack?

Max Rockatansky
02-06-2019, 09:13 AM
Defending America’s own borders is unconstitutional? Go figure.
Defending the borders is a Constitutional requirement. Whether or not using the US military to build fences and hand out water is a violation of Posse Comitatus (https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1385) remains to be seen.

Trump's use of troops isn't considered part of their regular deployment schedule. They could spend three months living in tent city along the border, then go home, unpack, repack and be sent on a 6-12 month deployment overseas. Of course most non-serving Americans don't give a damn since they believe "that's what everyone in the military signed up for".

Max Rockatansky
02-06-2019, 09:14 AM
A TDS attack?I doubt Trump Dick Suckers were taking shots. Beating off maybe, but probably not drinking. :)

Overall, I think it was a good speech. Trump provided a lot of good sound bites. His call for bipartisanship and unity is great in concept but I'd like to see him actually put it into action, not just pay lip-service to it.

Bo-4
02-06-2019, 09:16 AM
Good morning - Well, I didn't do all that well, and yet was correct on a few points.

1. Teleprompter Kumbaya Don to Stream of Consciousness Don: My guess was 12 minutes. He actually lasted more like 20 or 25 and did a halfway decent job or reading a halfway decent speech (probably not written by Stephen Miller) off the prompter.

2. There were no belittling names or insulting dead war heroes .. guess he got those out of his system at the event just prior


Earlier Tuesday, as his aides were previewing what they called a “unifying” State of the Union address focused on “comity,” Trump trashed Democrats, including at least one potential 2020 competitor, at a lunch with television news anchors. Trump ridiculed former vice president Joe Biden, considered a likely candidate, as “dumb” for his history of gaffes, according to an attendee and a person briefed on the discussion. Trump said he hoped to run against Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., but mockingly said, “I hope I haven’t wounded Pocahontas too badly,” a reference to his attacks on the senator for her claims of Native American heritage.


And what day would be complete without belittling John McCain for his thumbs-down on health care repeal. He "wrote a book that nobody bought" Donald? Bullshit - it was on the NYT bestseller list for 8 months. Care to weigh in Meghan?

https://twitter.com/MeghanMcCain/status/1092954878979252225

3. I bombed on the "national emergency" - He'll wait until next week on that even though I'm sure he wanted badly to get it out there last night.

As for unity/ touting women in the workplace/ working together/ kumbaya blah blah .. PLEASE Dotard. You don't get to come in one day a year with such golden plated bullshit and then do and say the exact opposite the other 364.

And of course, more lies. El Paso was one of the safest cities in the country BEFORE the wall was built. Funny, the Orange Anus hasn't talked to a single border mayor - ALL of whom oppose his stupid wall. El Paso and the mayor weigh in:

https://elpasoheraldpost.com/op-ed-a-dispatch-from-the-most-dangerous-city-in-america/

The channeling of Richard Nixon was cool. Nixon demanded an end to the Watergate investigation during a SOTU. A year later he was gone. But at least he didn't THREATEN lawmakers by saying there wouldn't be any legislation unless the investigations ceased. What an asshole.


“The only thing that can stop it are foolish wars, politics or ridiculous partisan investigations,” Trump continued. “If there is going to be peace and legislation, there cannot be war and investigation. It just doesn’t work that way!”

We have an out of control, probably quite insane madman authoritarian in the White House. Stop all the investigations? Sorry Donald - IT JUST DOESN'T WORK THAT WAY

And of course, there were many more lies and exaggerations - Nobody flings those with greater prolificacy than Donald J Trump :rolleyes:

https://www.cnn.com/2019/02/05/politics/fact-check-trump-state-of-the-union/index.html

Max Rockatansky
02-06-2019, 09:19 AM
Pass it over Bob.As noted above, after Trump's whining and attempts to derail a Republican legal investigation, he did try to recover.

Towards the end, I had to stop drinking because, although I doubt his sincerity, he was saying a lot of good things.

Bo-4
02-06-2019, 09:20 AM
1. Exactly how many minutes in do we go from Teleprompter Kumbaya Don to Stream of Consciousness Don? I'm voting for 48 min 32 sec
2. How many times will Stream of Consciousness, Untethered Don thrust forth a belittling nickname such as "Pocahontas" or "Crooked Hillary" ?? 0 but he will demean immigrants and democrats
3. Will he declare a "National Emergency" on the border??? I........don't know. He's so unpredictable. What the hell, I say no, he'll continue threatening a national emergency.
You're the frontrunner right now Trish ;-)

Bo-4
02-06-2019, 09:22 AM
I'd only had two shots until he started talking about "partisan investigations". Now I'm skipping the shot glass and just chugging the bottle.

Drinking games are a bad idea with Drumpf Bob. I learned that after a wicked scotch hangover last year around this time.

If you must, go with shots of beer ;-)

Bo-4
02-06-2019, 09:25 AM
Defending America’s own borders is unconstitutional? Go figure.

Funny, not one of his intel or foreign policy chiefs said a word about the border in their recent threat assessment.

Therefore there IS no threat. The courts will take notice - Open and shut - A fail for Dotard.

Max Rockatansky
02-06-2019, 09:27 AM
Obama declared a national emergency to send military equipment to Ukraine.
He declared several as did other Presidents.
https://edition.cnn.com/2017/08/12/politics/national-emergencies-trump-opioid/index.html
Here's a list of the 28 active national emergencies:

1. Blocking Iranian Government Property (Nov. 14, 1979)

2. Proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction (Nov. 14, 1994)

3. Prohibiting Transactions with Terrorists Who Threaten to Disrupt the Middle East Peace Process (Jan. 23, 1995)

4. Prohibiting Certain Transactions with Respect to the Development of Iranian Petroleum Resources (Mar. 15, 1995)

5. Blocking Assets and Prohibiting Transactions with Significant Narcotics Traffickers (Oct. 21, 1995)

6. Regulations of the Anchorage and Movement of Vessels with Respect to Cuba (Mar. 1, 1996)

7. Blocking Sudanese Government Property and Prohibiting Transactions with Sudan (Nov. 3, 1997)

8. Blocking Property of Persons Who Threaten International Stabilization Efforts in the Western Balkans (Jun. 26, 2001)

9. Continuation of Export Control Regulations (Aug. 17, 2001)
10. Declaration of National Emergency by Reason of Certain Terrorist Attacks (Sept. 14, 2001)

11. Blocking Property and Prohibiting Transactions with Persons who Commit, Threaten to Commit, or Support Terrorism (Sept. 23, 2001)

12. Blocking Property of Persons Undermining Democratic Processes or Institutions in Zimbabwe (Mar. 6, 2003)
13. Protecting the Development Fund for Iraq and Certain Other Property in Which Iraq has an Interest (May 22, 2003)

14. Blocking Property of Certain Persons and Prohibiting the Export of Certain Goods to Syria (May 11, 2004)

15. Blocking Property of Certain Persons Undermining Democratic Processes or Institutions in Belarus (Jun. 16, 2006)

16. Blocking Property of Certain Persons Contributing to the Conflict in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (Oct. 27, 2006)

17. Blocking Property of Persons Undermining the Sovereignty of Lebanon or Its Democratic Processes and Institutions (Aug. 1, 2007)

18. Continuing Certain Restrictions with Respect to North Korea and North Korean Nationals (Jun. 26, 2008)
19. Blocking Property of Certain Persons Contributing to the Conflict in Somalia (Apr. 12, 2010)

20. Blocking Property and Prohibiting Certain Transactions Related to Libya (Feb. 25, 2011)


21. Blocking Property of Transnational Criminal Organizations (Jul. 25, 2011)

22. Blocking Property of Persons Threatening the Peace, Security, or Stability of Yemen (May 16, 2012)

23. Blocking Property of Certain Persons Contributing to the Situation in Ukraine (Mar. 6, 2014)

24. Blocking Property of Certain Persons With Respect to South Sudan (Apr. 3, 2014)

25. Blocking Property of Certain Persons Contributing to the Conflict in the Central African Republic (May 12, 2014)

26. Blocking Property and Suspending Entry of Certain Persons Contributing to the Situation in Venezuela (Mar. 9, 2015)


27. Blocking the Property of Certain Persons Engaging in Significant Malicious Cyber-Enabled Activities (Apr. 1, 2015)

28. Blocking Property of Certain Persons Contributing to the Situation in Burundi (Nov. 23, 2015)

hanger4
02-06-2019, 09:44 AM
Funny, not one of his intel or foreign policy chiefs said a word about the border in their recent threat assessment. Therefore there IS no threat. The courts will take notice - Open and shut - A fail for Dotard.It's called "US World Wide Threat Assessment" from the IC community for a reason Bo-4.

Bo-4
02-06-2019, 09:55 AM
It's called "US World Wide Threat Assessment" from the IC community for a reason Bo-4.

Yes, worldwide threats to national security - Mexico and Central America are part of the world. They are not a threat.

Russia, China and NoKo on the other hand are. Iran is not so much - Still in compliance on nukes.

But you will choose to believe your Orange Overlord over thousands of career intel experts - Of course, Donald doesn't do many intel briefings and when he does .. they must be two pages double spaced with lots of pictures, circles and arrows.

Sad

Max Rockatansky
02-06-2019, 10:13 AM
Yes, worldwide threats to national security - Mexico and Central America are part of the world. They are not a threat.

Russia, China and NoKo on the other hand are. Iran is not so much - Still in compliance on nukes.

But you will choose to believe your Orange Overlord over thousands of career intel experts - Of course, Donald doesn't do many intel briefings and when he does .. they must be two pages double spaced with lots of pictures, circles and arrows.

Sad
A slight disagreement. Mexico is an ally. I've been traveling down there a few times a week since 2002. Their economy is booming with lots of growth although the great recession hurt all global economies.

As this link shows, their GDP has steadily grown: https://tradingeconomics.com/mexico/gdp-per-capita

Their biggest problem is the same the US had in the 1930s during Prohibition: powerful criminal gangs which spread corruption and crime. The Mexican government, with the assistance of the US, is getting a handle on it, but they still have a ways to go. I've watched military operations where the Federales have raided drug factories. (No, I wasn't on the raid itself)

That said, the Cartels still present a threat. Illegal immigration is a major problem which needs to be addressed. It's a problem that a 2000 mile wall won't fix for reasons that should be obvious to intelligent, sane and educated people. See example below.


Overall, we're better off working with the Mexicans than against them. If nothing else, they act as buffer for the mass migration of refugees from countries south of them. Along with Brazil, Mexico is at the top of the list of South and Central American countries listed by GDP and is the #1 country on that list by per capita GDP: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Latin_American_and_Caribbean_countries_by_ GDP_(PPP)

As such, while there are security threat issues with Mexico, we are better of working with them to solve the problems rather than insulting them and treating them like part of the problem. Especially since the main part of the "illegal immigration" problem are our own laws and lack of enforcement.



The west end of Trump's border fence
https://media-cdn.tripadvisor.com/media/photo-s/06/d3/c9/03/border-fence-extending.jpg

Tahuyaman
02-06-2019, 10:27 AM
Obama declared a national emergency to send military equipment to Ukraine.

He declared another to send assistance to Yemen.

hanger4
02-06-2019, 10:35 AM
Yes, worldwide threats to national security - Mexico and Central America are part of the world. They are not a threat.Russia, China and NoKo on the other hand are. Iran is not so much - Still in compliance on nukes.But you will choose to believe your Orange Overlord over thousands of career intel experts - Of course, Donald doesn't do many intel briefings and when he does .. they must be two pages double spaced with lots of pictures, circles and arrows.SadOur southern border isn't mentioned in the IC US World Wide Threat Assessment because it's a national/internal problem. If the illegal border crossings were state sponsored you might have a point.

Bo-4
02-06-2019, 10:42 AM
A slight disagreement. Mexico is an ally. I've been traveling down there a few times a week since 2002. Their economy is booming with lots of growth although the great recession hurt all global economies.

As this link shows, their GDP has steadily grown: https://tradingeconomics.com/mexico/gdp-per-capita

Their biggest problem is the same the US had in the 1930s during Prohibition: powerful criminal gangs which spread corruption and crime. The Mexican government, with the assistance of the US, is getting a handle on it, but they still have a ways to go. I've watched military operations where the Federales have raided drug factories. (No, I wasn't on the raid itself)

That said, the Cartels still present a threat. Illegal immigration is a major problem which needs to be addressed. It's a problem that a 2000 mile wall won't fix for reasons that should be obvious to intelligent, sane and educated people. See example below.


Overall, we're better off working with the Mexicans than against them. If nothing else, they act as buffer for the mass migration of refugees from countries south of them. Along with Brazil, Mexico is at the top of the list of South and Central American countries listed by GDP and is the #1 country on that list by per capita GDP: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Latin_American_and_Caribbean_countries_by_ GDP_(PPP)

As such, while there are security threat issues with Mexico, we are better of working with them to solve the problems rather than insulting them and treating them like part of the problem. Especially since the main part of the "illegal immigration" problem are our own laws and lack of enforcement.

The west end of Trump's border fence
https://media-cdn.tripadvisor.com/media/photo-s/06/d3/c9/03/border-fence-extending.jpg

I saw that west border fence ten years ago Bob when visiting a friend in Imperial Beach .. Trump built it?

If Mexico is an ally, Trump sure loves to pretend they aren't! He's also said he and Baby Kim were in love. Are they an ally too?

And how about his love affair with Xe and Putin?

And of course he goes out of his way to put down our ACTUAL allies ... I guess my point is, the "threat assessment" doesn't care whether the threat comes from a historical or current friend or foe. It highlights threats to our national security. Clearly, our intel chiefs don't believe that the southern border falls into that category.

Max Rockatansky
02-06-2019, 10:50 AM
I saw that west border fence ten years ago Bob when visiting a friend in Imperial Beach .. Trump built it?

If Mexico is an ally, Trump sure loves to pretend they aren't! He's also said he and Baby Kim were in love. Are they an ally too?

And how about his love affair with Xe and Putin?

And of course he goes out of his way to put down our ACTUAL allies ... I guess my point is, the "threat assessment" doesn't care whether the threat comes from a historical friend or foe. It highlights threats to our national security. Clearly, our intel chiefs don't believe that the southern border falls into that category.No, Trump didn't build it but is there any doubt he wants to spray paint his name on it in faux gold paint?

The fact Trump treats Mexico as an enemy is part of the problem.

Trump loves tin-plated dictators. A good reason to think he's a wannabe tyrant.

Agreed on national threats. Also agreed that the intel chiefs don't see the "Mexican invasion" and hordes of MS-13 drug runners and terrorists at the same level of severity as Trump whines about. Maybe it's because they realize that drug runners and terrorists using ports of entry with boats and trucks, not ladders or swimming.

Bo-4
02-06-2019, 11:01 AM
No, Trump didn't build it but is there any doubt he wants to spray paint his name on it in faux gold paint?

The fact Trump treats Mexico as an enemy is part of the problem.

Trump loves tin-plated dictators. A good reason to think he's a wannabe tyrant.

Agreed on national threats. Also agreed that the intel chiefs don't see the "Mexican invasion" and hordes of MS-13 drug runners and terrorists at the same level of severity as Trump whines about. Maybe it's because they realize that drug runners and terrorists using ports of entry with boats and trucks, not ladders or swimming.
Yep, to clarify .. I have no issues repairing/upgrading existing fence and extending for short distances where intel and border security tell us it is most needed. But the ports of entry scanning and technology is a whole bunch more important as evidenced by the largest fentanyl bust in history.

https://www.azcentral.com/story/news/politics/border-issues/2019/01/31/254-pound-fentanyl-seizure-sets-record-nogales-arizona-border-crossing/2731969002/

Of course we should also fund doubling the number of asylum judges and adding detention facilities. This is a humanitarian crisis, not a security crisis.

Donald is likely to shut down the gub-ment again next week. It will not go well for him, but with a little luck - His days are numbered.

https://pics.me.me/the-wall-that-will-make-america-safe-again-23156558.png

Max Rockatansky
02-06-2019, 11:07 AM
Yep, to clarify .. I have no issues repairing/upgrading existing fence and extending for short distances where intel and border security tell us it is most needed. But the ports of entry scanning and technology is a whole bunch more important as evidenced by the largest fentanyl bust in history.

https://www.azcentral.com/story/news/politics/border-issues/2019/01/31/254-pound-fentanyl-seizure-sets-record-nogales-arizona-border-crossing/2731969002/

Of course we should also fund doubling the number of asylum judges and adding detention facilities. This is a humanitarian crisis, not a security crisis.

Donald is likely to shut down the gub-ment again next week. It will not go well for him, but with a little luck - His days are numbered.

https://pics.me.me/the-wall-that-will-make-america-safe-again-23156558.png
Agreed since that is exactly what the Border Patrol sees as the problem.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2019/01/16/fact-check-mike-pence-donald-trump-drugs-crossing-southern-border-wall/2591279002/

Hoosier8
02-06-2019, 11:07 AM
Funny, not one of his intel or foreign policy chiefs said a word about the border in their recent threat assessment.

Therefore there IS no threat. The courts will take notice - Open and shut - A fail for Dotard.

As usual some of you only know what you are told to think.

The CIA and the FBI are touted as disagreeing with Trump on border security like this title:


US intel heads list North Korea, not border, as threat to US (https://www.thenewstribune.com/news/business/article225226445.html)

They have nothing to do with border security or border intel, HSI does that and they are the ones advising Trump on what is needed.

Cletus
02-06-2019, 11:55 AM
Defending the borders is a Constitutional requirement. Whether or not using the US military to build fences and hand out water is a violation of Posse Comitatus (https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1385) remains to be seen.

Conducting engineering operations and humanitarian functions creates no issues with PC. You would have to be really desperate to try to use that as an excuse for opposing such a deployment.


Trump's use of troops isn't considered part of their regular deployment schedule. They could spend three months living in tent city along the border, then go home, unpack, repack and be sent on a 6-12 month deployment overseas. Of course most non-serving Americans don't give a damn since they believe "that's what everyone in the military signed up for".

Isn't it?

They signed up to follow the orders of the Commander in Chief and that is what they'll do.

Ransom
02-06-2019, 11:58 AM
Drinking games are a bad idea with Drumpf Bob. I learned that after a wicked scotch hangover last year around this time.

If you must, go with shots of beer ;-)

had a pretty wicked election hangover too as I remember it.

Bo-4
02-06-2019, 01:22 PM
As usual some of you only know what you are told to think.

The CIA and the FBI are touted as disagreeing with Trump on border security like this title:



They have nothing to do with border security or border intel, HSI does that and they are the ones advising Trump on what is needed.

Trump's ICE or Trump's Homeland Security who he tells what to do and what to say?

LoLz :~)

https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-MU65F4lxdrE/WyjjGrAHL_I/AAAAAAAAnb4/xLORH9dfKuwisitt09Xk6PK9f2bXdJIGACLcBGAs/s1600/Homeland%2BSecurity%2BSecretary%2BKirstjen%2BNiels en.jpg

Bo-4
02-06-2019, 01:23 PM
had a pretty wicked election hangover too as I remember it.
Someone used my head as a piñata :D

Hoosier8
02-06-2019, 01:23 PM
Trump's ICE or Trump's Homeland Security who he tells what to do and what to say?

LoLz :~)

https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-MU65F4lxdrE/WyjjGrAHL_I/AAAAAAAAnb4/xLORH9dfKuwisitt09Xk6PK9f2bXdJIGACLcBGAs/s1600/Homeland%2BSecurity%2BSecretary%2BKirstjen%2BNiels en.jpg

The Border Patrol who has to deal with this, not an internet armchair expert such as yourself.

Cletus
02-06-2019, 01:25 PM
Someone used my head as a piñata :D

My guess is repeatedly.

zachroidott
02-06-2019, 01:25 PM
Trump's ICE or Trump's Homeland Security who he tells what to do and what to say?

LoLz :~)

https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-MU65F4lxdrE/WyjjGrAHL_I/AAAAAAAAnb4/xLORH9dfKuwisitt09Xk6PK9f2bXdJIGACLcBGAs/s1600/Homeland%2BSecurity%2BSecretary%2BKirstjen%2BNiels en.jpg
You don’t like Scandinavian bureaucrats?

Bo-4
02-06-2019, 01:28 PM
My guess is repeatedly.
You're the dude who thinks Dotard can do anything he fucking pleases with the US military.

My brain cells grew back - Yours may be in permanent disarray from Wicked Uncle Ernie droppin' ya on yer head as a baby. ;-)

Ransom
02-06-2019, 01:36 PM
Someone used my head as a piñata :D

lol

Cletus
02-06-2019, 01:36 PM
You're the dude who thinks Dotard can do anything he fucking pleases with the US military.

My brain cells grew back - Your may be in permanent disarray from Wicked Uncle Ernie droppin' ya on yer head as a baby. ;-)

I hope you know your absence wasn't even noted until you returned. The sudden drop in the board's collective IQ when you started posting again is the only thing that made anyone realize you were ever gone.

Bo-4
02-06-2019, 02:00 PM
I hope you know your absence wasn't even noted until you returned. The sudden drop in the board's collective IQ when you started posting again is the only thing that made anyone realize you were ever gone.
I missed you too Mr Spuckler :D

https://pbs.twimg.com/profile_images/3206422660/03a56b866bf6fc212c29a198edc58137_400x400.jpeg

hanger4
02-06-2019, 02:07 PM
Trump's ICE or Trump's Homeland Security who he tells what to do and what to say?LoLz :~)https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-MU65F4lxdrE/WyjjGrAHL_I/AAAAAAAAnb4/xLORH9dfKuwisitt09Xk6PK9f2bXdJIGACLcBGAs/s1600/Homeland%2BSecurity%2BSecretary%2BKirstjen%2BNiels en.jpgWas ICE a part of the IC community that presented the US World Wide Threat Assessment ??

Bo-4
02-06-2019, 02:10 PM
Was ICE a part of the IC community that presented the US World Wide Threat Assessment ??

Listen up here hang - Trump claims that terrorists are slipping through the border.

We all know that that to be a bogus claim. If it were real, damn straight they'd have been part of the WWTA.

Are ya with me yet?

MisterVeritis
02-06-2019, 02:13 PM
Listen up here hang - Trump claims that terrorists are slipping through the border.

We all know that that to be a bogus claim. If it were real, damn straight they'd have been part of the WWTA.

Are ya with me yet?
I have read a few of those threat assessments. Most of the things in the written report don't find their way into congressional briefings.

Bo-4
02-06-2019, 02:20 PM
I have read a few of those threat assessments. Most of the things in the written report don't find their way into congressional briefings.

What was it Kirstjen claimed ... 1400 or so terrorists apprehended at southern border? Then it turned out to be SIX with 40-some coming through on Canadian side. The 1400 was WORLDWIDE, mostly questioned at airports because they were No Flyers. Had her assessment not been a bald-faced lie, it WOULD have been part of the assessment .. BELIEVE ME ;-)

Max Rockatansky
02-06-2019, 02:38 PM
Trump's use of troops isn't considered part of their regular deployment schedule. They could spend three months living in tent city along the border, then go home, unpack, repack and be sent on a 6-12 month deployment overseas. Of course most non-serving Americans don't give a damn since they believe "that's what everyone in the military signed up for".
...Isn't it?
They signed up to follow the orders of the Commander in Chief and that is what they'll do.QED. Yes, they'll follow their orders.

https://i.imgflip.com/2t0o7a.jpg

Jeb!
02-06-2019, 02:46 PM
Pretty bad predictions.

hanger4
02-06-2019, 02:55 PM
Listen up here hang - Trump claims that terrorists are slipping through the border. We all know that that to be a bogus claim. If it were real, damn straight they'd have been part of the WWTA. Are ya with me yet?So ICE wasn't part of the US World Wide Threat Assessment. That being said here's what Coats said about the border; ........... *Coats supported Trump's claim that the flood of migrants from Central America is causing a security crisis. The assessment includes migration from Central America as one of the threats to national security.* ........*This is not the first time the intelligence community has identified migration from Central America as a security threat. The same finding was included in the Worldwide Threat Assessment that former DNI James R. Clapper presented to Congress in 2016, which was during the Obama administration.* .................. https://www.google.com/amp/s/thehill.com/opinion/immigration/428316-intelligence-community-views-migration-from-central-america-as-threat-to%3famp

Bo-4
02-06-2019, 02:57 PM
Pretty bad predictions.
I do like your Jeb! avatar .. kinda reminds me of this shot :~)

https://cdn.cnn.com/cnnnext/dam/assets/150312132133-jeb-bush-gallery-9-large-169.jpg

Bo-4
02-06-2019, 03:52 PM
So ICE wasn't part of the US World Wide Threat Assessment. That being said here's what Coats said about the border; ........... *Coats supported Trump's claim that the flood of migrants from Central America is causing a security crisis. The assessment includes migration from Central America as one of the threats to national security.* ........*This is not the first time the intelligence community has identified migration from Central America as a security threat. The same finding was included in the Worldwide Threat Assessment that former DNI James R. Clapper presented to Congress in 2016, which was during the Obama administration.* .................. https://www.google.com/amp/s/thehill.com/opinion/immigration/428316-intelligence-community-views-migration-from-central-america-as-threat-to%3famp

Okay - Fair enough. They sure didn't dwell much on it in the briefing itself!

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/spy-agencies-doubt-north-korea-will-give-up-nuclear-weapons/2019/01/29/59c02ef2-23d4-11e9-b5b4-1d18dfb7b084_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.33a736c0f7e1

Tahuyaman
02-06-2019, 04:06 PM
Closest guess on all three questions wins the Internet - I'll bestow the final judging honors on Mr Utley.

1. Exactly how many minutes in do we go from Teleprompter Kumbaya Don to Stream of Consciousness Don?
2. How many times will Stream of Consciousness, Untethered Don thrust forth a belittling nickname such as "Pocahontas" or "Crooked Hillary" ??
3. Will he declare a "National Emergency" on the border???

To be fair, I'll go first:

1. At the 12 minute mark, he goes rogue and turns it into a campaign rally with an official "Airing of Grievances". 12 minutes is the outer limit of his prompter concentration and ability to act presidential - - *AOC then enters stage left and strategically places the Festivus pole ;-)
2. We'll get only one of his patented, belittling nicknames .. Audible groans will ensue
3. Trump will absolutely go all "National Emergency" - He's stuck between a rock and a hard place having lost the debate on his big, beautiful, stupid vanity slats that normal Americans don't want. This is why he's sending another 3,750 troops to the border to roll out more concertina wire. Gotta make it at least LOOK like a certifiable "emergency"

Our lucky Internet winner will also be the recipient of a champagne glass filled with Baby Trump Tears™ :D

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DTv68uqU8AAU8ZN.jpg

His speech turned out much differently than you predicted. It was a very well delivers speech and it seems that most people across the country approved of his message.

He didn't attack anyone or any group of people. He didn't go into partisan mode. In fact he did pretty much the opposite as you predicted.

hanger4
02-06-2019, 04:08 PM
Okay - Fair enough. They sure didn't dwell much on it in the briefing itself!https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/spy-agencies-doubt-north-korea-will-give-up-nuclear-weapons/2019/01/29/59c02ef2-23d4-11e9-b5b4-1d18dfb7b084_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.33a736c0f7e1All we've seen and know was in the open meeting and the public doc release. We know not what was said in the closed meeting nor do we have access to the classified docs. Some in the MSM and many many blogs and pseudo news sites with an agenda to grind have purposely lied or lied by omission about what the US World Wide Threat Assessment report says.

Tahuyaman
02-06-2019, 04:09 PM
Pretty bad predictions.


Bad in that none of them came to pass. Trump did a good job. It was the best speech he has ever delivered. In order for Democrats to criticize it, they need to focus on things he didn't say.

MisterVeritis
02-06-2019, 04:20 PM
I have read a few of those threat assessments. Most of the things in the written report don't find their way into congressional briefings.

What was it Kirstjen claimed ... 1400 or so terrorists apprehended at southern border? Then it turned out to be SIX with 40-some coming through on Canadian side. The 1400 was WORLDWIDE, mostly questioned at airports because they were No Flyers. Had her assessment not been a bald-faced lie, it WOULD have been part of the assessment .. BELIEVE ME ;-)
If you are not going to address my post don't quote me.

Bo-4
02-06-2019, 04:25 PM
All we've seen and know was in the open meeting and the public doc release. We know not what was said in the closed meeting nor do we have access to the classified docs. Some in the MSM and many many blogs and pseudo news sites with an agenda to grind have purposely lied or lied by omission about what the US World Wide Threat Assessment report says.
So why was the Dotard so F-ing upset with 17 separate intel agencies and the thousands of career professionals who work there that directly contradicted his goofy narrative?
https://nypost.com/2019/02/03/trump-slams-intel-chiefs-says-he-doesnt-have-to-agree-with-them/

And why does he idiotically continue to deny his own climate scientists?
http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2018/11/trump-im-too-intelligent-to-believe-climate-change-report.html

Sorry man, he lives in his own little parallel universe. Sad

Bo-4
02-06-2019, 04:26 PM
I have read a few of those threat assessments. Most of the things in the written report don't find their way into congressional briefings.
If you are not going to address my post don't quote me.

I addressed and debunked your post.

Have a nice day

Tahuyaman
02-06-2019, 05:29 PM
The only thing which is completely predictable is Bo's trolling. I predict that it will continue. I predict that it will be mindless, repetative and nothing which shows he has any imagination.

DGUtley
02-06-2019, 08:47 PM
The only thing which is completely predictable is Bo's trolling. I predict that it will continue. I predict that it will be mindless, repetative and nothing which shows he has any imagination.

WARNING - Tahuyaman, report rather than in-thread moderation. Thanks.

MisterVeritis
02-06-2019, 11:09 PM
I addressed and debunked your post.

Have a nice day
No. You didn't.

Tahuyaman
02-06-2019, 11:27 PM
People really should avoid using the word debunked. I can't remember the last time someone claimed something was debunked when it actually was debunked. It's used now as a way to avoid supporting a comment.

Bo-4
02-07-2019, 09:00 AM
People really should avoid using the word debunked. I can't remember the last time someone claimed something was debunked when it actually was debunked. It's used now as a way to avoid supporting a comment.

Slow minds take far too much time whining about debunking and not enough reading through mountains of previously posted links proving beyond a doubt that something has been debunked.

If someone tells me that Obama is a Muslim from Kenya with a fake birth certificate who frequented gay bath houses in Chicago, his real Daddy is Frank Marshall Davis, his books were written by William Ayers, he didn't attend Columbia because no one knew him; and Michelle is a tranny ... I'll be damned if I'm gonna waste more time on Google knowing that they'll be back with more of the same dumbfuckery day after tomorrow.

Hope that helps :rolleyes:

Max Rockatansky
02-07-2019, 11:04 AM
Slow minds take far too much time whining about debunking and not enough reading through mountains of previously posted links proving beyond a doubt that something has been debunked.

If someone tells me that Obama is a Muslim from Kenya with a fake birth certificate who frequented gay bath houses in Chicago, his real Daddy is Frank Marshall Davis, his books were written by William Ayers, he didn't attend Columbia because no one knew him; and Michelle is a tranny ... I'll be damned if I'm gonna waste more time on Google knowing that they'll be back with more of the same dumbfuckery day after tomorrow.

Hope that helps :rolleyes:
All good points. The key for me is to figure out who is sane and who isn't. Obviously there is a higher percentage of insane people online than we know in real life since most people aren't locked up inside a facility or fading away at a retirement facility with the Internet as their only window to the world.

Sane people can disagree, but, depending upon their levels of education, may or may not be able to intelligently discuss issues. Insane people, by definition, are unreasonable. No one can rationalize with an irrational person. It doesn't matter the cause; paranoia, delusional disorder or just old age dementia. Their minds are going and, even though it's not their fault, there is nothing to be gained by trying to discuss an issue with them. Most of the time I just post a rebuttal (e.g. "Sorry, but I don't believe ZOG is charge of the US government!") and move on.

MisterVeritis
02-07-2019, 11:42 AM
Slow minds take far too much time whining about debunking and not enough reading through mountains of previously posted links proving beyond a doubt that something has been debunked.

If someone tells me that Obama is a Muslim from Kenya with a fake birth certificate who frequented gay bath houses in Chicago, his real Daddy is Frank Marshall Davis, his books were written by William Ayers, he didn't attend Columbia because no one knew him; and Michelle is a tranny ... I'll be damned if I'm gonna waste more time on Google knowing that they'll be back with more of the same dumbfuckery day after tomorrow.

Hope that helps :rolleyes:
Wait! Mooch isn't really a man?

MisterVeritis
02-07-2019, 11:43 AM
Slow minds take far too much time whining about debunking and not enough reading through mountains of previously posted links proving beyond a doubt that something has been debunked.

If someone tells me that Obama is a Muslim from Kenya with a fake birth certificate who frequented gay bath houses in Chicago, his real Daddy is Frank Marshall Davis, his books were written by William Ayers, he didn't attend Columbia because no one knew him; and Michelle is a tranny ... I'll be damned if I'm gonna waste more time on Google knowing that they'll be back with more of the same dumbfuckery day after tomorrow.

Hope that helps :rolleyes:
All of this to cover up your failures...