130.000

[NOWHARD Banned Find all posts View Profile Close NOWHARD]

Donnie tell me what he did that was illegal? No campaign funds were used by Cohen to pay Stormy.If you can prove to the contrary Id love to see the proof. So back to the original question; what did he do that was illegal and where is your proof?

CUSP where the cash come from is still a bit in the air unless you believe Rudi G, but then Trump said it never happened, if so why pay $130.00 for something he said never happened, the reason Stormy come to the front was being approached by some thug, that's how its all got blown up,

Is that right?

NOWHARD

[NOWHARD Banned Find all posts View Profile Close NOWHARD]

Who would have thunk, a hit piece on Trump started by NowHard and shrilled by Dontrike...Some things never change. Both of you are wrong, getting your news and information from sources that have been proven to be biased and not true. You both can shrill all you want, but it won't change the fact that the economy is booming, unemployment is way down, welfare recipient participation is down and illegal immigration is also down. If you two want to open up your own sanctuary city to feed all the misfits, by all means go at it. But the continued spewing of untruths without even bothering to read both sides of the story is tiresome. You are both mouth pieces for the standard liberal talking points that are going to unravel with time. I'll make another batch of popcorn while I await your next post about the standard talking points.

ZZ get your head out of the sand, this is big news not just in America but around the world, but it gets you guys going, and you can see who really cares , but you have to remember its not going away to its finished.

So ZZ your saying again the BBC is biased, one of the most loved news sauces around the world for factual news.

All I can say is up yours ZZ as against what you put up to me, I will dig that and show others here, anything is good for a laugh on you, now that is stacked so one sided it falls off the screen, but then you love it, because its what you want to read and see, that makes it so biased, and you cant read anything else.

You mean a talking point like yours, of going into peoples house to price work there, but first you straighten up there pictures and look at the work done by others there, how sad is that, but for you it must be excitement?

You should never look at others work its your that needs to stand out from your skills, its that that counts.

NOWHARD

[NOWHARD Banned Find all posts View Profile Close NOWHARD]

Hi So why put this up? well its got you all going, your all talking, and I do know one of you is having fun and me to, you may not like it but this is world news as you will see here's one fro the BBC, you should like it, that's if you all do read then through its in 3 parts.

And that question is...
If Daniels is lying, why pay $130,000 to silence her?
There are three possible answers.
Answer 1: She's not lying. The hotel-room episode, or something like it, happened.

This is probably the most straightforward possibility. The president and White House Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders have already backed away from earlier assertions that Mr Trump had no knowledge of the payment, so the reliability of their denials about the encounter itself is in question.

There would be a political price to pay for admitting further obfuscations, of course, but the American public wasn't exactly in the dark about Mr Trump's personal foibles when enough of them voted for him to make him president.

In 1998 Bill Clinton famously admitted to lying about his affair with White House intern Monica Lewinsky, and the revelation did little to dent his overall public approval ratings, which at the time were much higher than Mr Trump's current numbers.

Daniels' lawyer has hinted that they have corroborating evidence for their allegations, so there's a not insignificant chance that this is where the story eventually winds up.
　
Answer 2: She's lying, but the accusation would have been so damaging to Mr Trump's presidential campaign that it had to be silenced.

Former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani, Trump's latest personal lawyer, has tried variations of this explanation in the hours following his blockbuster revelation that the president reimbursed Mr Cohen for his six-figure payment.

"Imagine if that came out on October 15, 2016, in the middle of the last debate with Hillary Clinton," he said on the cable show Fox & Friends on Thursday morning. "He didn't even ask. Cohen made it go away."

The problem with this is it explicitly acknowledges that Mr Cohen's actions were taken to assist Mr Trump's presidential campaign. Even if Mr Cohen was later reimbursed by the president from his personal funds, Mr Cohen's payment would probably constitute a campaign loan - which is required by law to be reported in Federal Election Commission filings.

Back in 2011 former Democratic Vice-Presidential nominee John Edwards was charged with multiple counts of campaign fraud for using political donations to help conceal an affair he had with a campaign videographer.

Although the legal proceedings ended in a hung jury, the episode offers an example of how alleged campaign law violations can become serious legal trouble.
　
Answer 3: She's lying, but "celebrities and people of wealth" make these kind of payments all the time to avoid unpleasant situations.

In his second of three Daniels-related tweets on Thursday morning, the president implied that non-disclosure payments - even to liars and extortionists - are part of the burden of being rich and/or famous.

If Mr Trump, through Mr Cohen, made these kind of payments all the time, and not just to Ms Daniels to avoid a damaging revelation on the eve of the presidential election, that could avoid potential campaign finance law violations.

Part of the challenge of deciphering the president's legal strategy over the past day is that Mr Giuliani has offered a smorgasbord of sometimes contradictory explanations for why the payment was made.

In the same Fox & Friends interview where the former mayor talked about how damaging the Daniels story would have been to Mr Trump's campaign, he said the payment was made to "save" Mr Trump's marriage to Melania.

"The president had been hurt, personally, not politically, personally so much, and the first lady, by some of the false allegations," Mr Giuliani said.
He added the $130,000 payment, for a man like Mr Trump, wasn't that big a deal.

"It sounds like a lot of money," he said. "It's not when you're putting a hundred million dollars into your campaign. It isn't pocket change, but it's pretty close to it at the end."

This type of defence could come with its own political price, however. The president's blue-collar supporters may not appreciate hearing the president's lawyers describe what would amount to several years' of their salary as "pocket change".

More than a few of the president's surrogates have blasted Democratic Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi's characterisation of the benefits of the Republican tax cut to lower-income earners as "crumbs". Mr Giuiliani may have just given Democrats a potent rebuttal.

When considering the other options, however, an "it's no big deal" answer may be the least bad choice.

There will be a break why I find another one.

But please do comment on them, are they right or wrong?

Ladies and Gentlemen Rudi G states its small pocket change for Trump, all I can say he must have bloody big pockets.

NOWHARD

[NOWHARD Banned Find all posts View Profile Close NOWHARD]

And what about this from Australia's ABC

United States President Donald Trump has bragged about a crushing winning record in the estimated 3,500 legal cases he has been involved in over the past three decades, but Stormy Daniels has him twisted in knots.

The determined porn star, whose real name is Stephanie Clifford, and her made-for-cable television lawyer Michael Avenatti have proved implacable foes and Mr Trump's lawyers have scored some huge own goals.

For those who havenot been paying attention, Ms Daniels was paid $130,000 days before the US election to keep quiet about an alleged affair with Mr Trump back in 2006 (he denies the affair took place).

On airforce One on April 5, the President offered the seemingly implasible explanation that his lawyer Michael Cohen made the payment without his knowledge or reimbursement.

They defied everyone's experience of litigation as an expensive, almost never-ending sinkhole for hard-earned cash.

Those first payments had many wondering where one could find a lawyer who not only made payments on your behalf to fix problems, but never sent you a bill.

Then last night Mr Trump's latest lawyer Rudi Giuliani spectaculary blow up that explanation on the friendly territory of Sean Hannity's program on Fox News ( remember Hannity was outed by as Mr Cohen's mystery third client).

Mr Giuliani revealed the truth that the relationship between Mr Trump and Mr Cohen was more conventional and his lawyer had racked up billable hours.

It was a stunning admission and one that was seized on by Daniels' media-savvy lawyer Mr Avenatti.

In a series of tweets that appear to have been drafted by a lawyer (Mr Giuliani perhaps), Mr Trump confirmed that was true while trying to avoid the obvious legal pitfall by declaring the payment did not breach campaign finance laws.

Mr Giuliani appeared to contradict himself on that point on Hannity — saying the payment was to avoid personal pain in his home life while also speculating about how it would have looked if the (alleged) affair was made public before an election debate.

Political opponents have already filed a lawsuit alleging the payment violated the law because it was an undeclared campaign expense.
Under campaign laws violations have to be "knowing and wilful", which is why Mr Giuliani's comments caused such a stir.

The disclosure does not mean Mr Trump will be prosecuted, much less convicted, but the failure to at least get a story straight and stick to it will ensure the tale of the President and the porn star remains front of mind.

And if the alibi runs into that much trouble in the friendly surrounds of a Hannity interview, how would it hold up under the glare of an investigation?

Still, Mr Trump has been something of a Teflon Don surviving the release of the access Hollywood tapes — a scandal that would have killed most candidates.

For now though investigators are cataloguing records seized from Mr Cohen, who faces prosecution.

Ms Daniels is doing Mr Trump more harm than his rivals in the Democratic and Republican parties combined.

While the President suffers, Daniels continues to profit and build on her reputation as one of the biggest names in the industry.

In February she released a film called Stormy Trumps All.

Any views then? anyone.

NOWHARD

[CUSP82 Administrator Admin of the Month Dec 2014PEGym Hero Find all posts View Profile Close CUSP82]

CUSP where the cash come from is still a bit in the air unless you believe Rudi G, but then Trump said it never happened, if so why pay $130.00 for something he said never happened, the reason Stormy come to the front was being approached by some thug, that's how its all got blown up,

Is that right?

NOWHARD

When you're worth a billion what's 130 g's? And if he did use campaign money he gets fined, not jailed or impeached. Hell Obama had to pay a 340,000 dollar fine for breaking campaign finance law in 2008. Why not bring that up?

[Dontrike Senior Member Find all posts View Profile Close Dontrike]

Tax cut Donnie? By rules of the senate it had to have an expiration just like the Bush tax cuts that Obama renewed.Would you like to be the president that doesn't renew a tax cut?

See, that's a trap for whoever is next (Republican or Democrat, and even Trump himself) and that's bullshit. Trump doing that makes sure they can blame someone later, instead of those that created the mess (him). By the way, taxes aren't evil, they pay for our roads, schools, police, fire department, infrastructure and so much more. I don't know about you but keeping schools funded and making sure we have enough officers (both police and fire) and with the right tools is important.

There are only two ways to save money. Either increase what you are saving, ergo taxes, or cut spending. Problem being we keep increasing spending every year and cutting taxes. You can't do both.

Taxes are not inherently evil, but of course too many taxes is a terrible thing. It's up to those that are voted in to find a balance and that hasn't happened in some time, which only shows that the American people doesn't fucking know what the fuck they want and when they think they do vote in the wrong people, at all levels of government. We need to keep the government running somehow and taxes are how we do that.

ISIS- lost 98% of the territory they controlled.

But not completely gone. Again, not defeated entirely, and he said he'd do it in 100 days.

Coal companies are hiring; taxes cut.

No and no. (You'll notice I used both a "left" and "right" sources, in case you tried to hand wave it away.) Coal is never coming back. It is a dying industry and there's no reason to save it. What we should be doing is making systems to allow those miners to learn new skills, not try and save something that only gets worse each year when other energy sources are becoming cheaper and more efficient.

That would be like saying we want to save the horse and buggy industry or the cigarette industry. Things end, things die, and better things appear and it's better to look forward to the future than saving the past, especially when it doesn't hold the benefit it used to have. (Yes, I know that's hypocritical for me to say, being one that hates change and the future, but it's still true.)

Republicans only have 51 votes in the Senate to pass bill yet Senate rules call for 60 which means some Democrats must vote for the bill and right now the Democrats vote no on everything. Funny not one Democrat voted for a tax cut; not one.

Might be because there's no point in giving corporations even more money during a booming economy, especially under the pretense of giving the average worker that money, AND top it all off with no rule in place they have to better employees at a minimum. At least with Obama helping out the banks it actually paid for itself as they paid it back with interest. This tax cut on the other hand was nothing more than a hand out to people that didn't need it at all, especially when they are doing the best they have for quite some time. I'll link the quote of Trump saying "you're about to get much richer" again, but then again you won't read it again, so I don't know why I bother. You know what that money would have been better for? The infrastructure bill he wanted to pass (which he still hasn't). That $1.5 trillion would have been good for that and no one would complain about helping Flint out with their water.

As for the wall, that literally won't do anything and it would cost billions. I thought the GOP was the party of fiscal responsibility? So why do they want to build a wall that will cost easily over $100 billion to build, and it being a nightmare to do so (might want to look up how hard it was just to put up a 700 mile fence) with a myriad of issues that would make this post four times as long as it is now, and billions in upkeep with more security and maintenance.

I guess a possible peace in the Koreas mean nothing to you.

Oh your god. Seriously? I asked you for what Trump did, not that peace with Koreas is bad. The fuck is wrong with you? I asked for a simple thing and you can't even do that. I just want you tell me what Trump did to do that. You proclaimed he had something to do with it, I asked you to provide a source as to what he did, and not once have you. So now I'm at the third time asking and no answer yet. If he did so much to help with this then you should be able to provide a source or an answers, but you haven't.

Seriously, how do you get "you hate peace" from "what did Trump do?" How? HOW?!

I guess allowing Syria to use chemical weapons you don't care about.

Well this comes from nowhere. Literally this was not talked about previously, so kudos I guess for bringing up something completely random. Woo?

You must think it's okay for us to spend our money protecting Europe when the NATO countries will not pay what they agreed to pay.

See, I don't care about that right now, because I know nothing of it. If you wish to educate me on it then provide sources, but you don't do that so I guess I won't be getting that from you. When I know nothing about a topic I can't say anything about it. So you assuming that is all on you. You know the phrase "when you assume you make an ass out of you and me?" well I'm definitely an ass, but I don't know why you'd want to do that to yourself.

I have no opinion on that, so yay for you bringing up yet another random topic and assuming. You get a gold star!

I guess the lowest black and hispanic unemployment in history doesn't really excite you because you're nt black or hispanic.

(Oh and before you cry "media!" that source is from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics) That has been going down for some time as well and believe it or not Trump didn't suddenly magically make it low. It's been a work in progress for years, long before him. Stop thinking Trump snapped his fingers and made it so, like some sort of deity.

I guess our spending more money on defense and producing more oil,both which weakens the Russian economy and gives Putin less money to cause trouble I guess that's how Trump is making nice nice to Putin.

Oh you mean like Trump complaining he had to sign sanctions on Russia and six months to act on them?
Or when he said he wouldn't enforce the sanctions?
Or do you mean how he actually blocked sanctions?
Or do you mean how Trump says he believes Putin and Russia didn't mess with the election because he asked Putin?
Or do you mean when Trump has complimented Putin?
Or do you mean when Trump congratulated Putin on winning the sham of an election where many of his opponents suddenly showed up dead or were barred from running?

Oh sorry, I know you're allergic to anything that's media and not some guy down the street. I hope you'll be okay.

Woof, you're right. That's some severe punishment Trump is doling out. It's exactly like my mother beating me and my brother, there's no other way to compare the pure beating Trump has been giving them besides that. Trump is a monster. He's like no other when it comes to being tough on Russia.

Sorry Donnie but everything you said I can hear on CNN and MSNBC everyday!

And? I've said this before, it doesn't matter where the source comes form as long as it's right. ZZ himself says to look at both sides and yet you and him ignore all of my links and sources while offering no sources in return. But woohoo for you taking a dig at news sources I don't watch. Again you assume. I guess you deserve two gold stars for assuming.

Agreed.
But I find it ironic that people who were very dismissive of lies like "If you like your policy...", that directly impacted millions of people, or that the Benghazi attack, that killed four men including a U.S. Ambassador, was somehow due to a YouTube video, are now outraged because a married guy lied about having transactional sex.

It isn't about the sex, although a little as it's hypocritical for the evangelicals to forgive him after all of this. I don't care who he fucks, all that means is he's paying someone to be disappointed in what he's doing. It's like if I were to get a hooker. If I wanted people to be disappointed in me I'd walk into crowded room rather than paying for it. But hey it's SUPER AWESOME when the president does it.

I don't care about the sex, I care if the president is doing illegal things. Anyone should be pissed if ANY president (Obama, Bush, Clinton, Hillary (which we all know is the president of the Deep State), or Trump) did something illegal. They should be brought to justice. If there's any chance of any of them doing something wrong then they need to be brought down. It isn't about politics it is about making sure the ruler of this country is a symbol for us, not someone bringing us down every moment of the day.

Who would have thunk, a hit piece on Trump started by NowHard and shrilled by Dontrike...Some things never change.

The truest source of irony when it comes to "shilling", and it's hilarious you think this is a hit piece when Trump could be breaking the law at every turn and you are okay with it in every way. You don't even go "Okay, if he did it then get him" you just blindly accept Trump did no wrong because......you know I have no idea, he has a history of breaking the law and you ignoring it means you are doing it on purpose out of some blind faith for a conman.

Conservatives: "Trump says it like he means it, no filter, it's great."
Trump: "Says something stupid with no filter."
Everyone: "Talks about it and makes fun of it because he's the president and him saying stupid shit is actually a bit deal."
Conservatives: "They can't say things like they mean it, that's wrong. Leave Trump alone."

Hypocrite oath right there. "My guy is right and if you do the same things you're wrong because you disagree."

Both of you are wrong, getting your news and information from sources that have been proven to be biased and not true.

Would you like to prove that? I'm going to guess no because neither you nor Cusp ever provide sources to your claims. You'll find I have sources for mine in this very post. If it's so easy to prove then it should be easy for you to link your sources, but that would mean effort.

.....it won't change the fact that the economy is booming

Oh man, if only it wasn't as easy as looking at the DOW and proving you wrong....oh wait it is with a simple google search of "dow" and seeing the last year. Wow, look at all the down part once January hit. Can't be Obama's economy anymore when Trump passed the tax cut. A shame a simple google search would have stopped you from saying something wrong. Lots of up going on there or do you think that it's down by 2,000, and 3,000 lower at times, a good thing?

unemployment is way down

Which it's been going down for years, but it must have been Trump only, after all Trump is magic, but again why say right things when you can say the wrong things and make me link something to prove you wrong (but you won't read it anyways). Trump did nothing special to make any of that happen. Tax cuts certainly didn't make corporations hire more, that's for sure.

welfare recipient participation is down

Again, would you like to prove that? Closest thing I'm seeing about participation rate is from 2015, which was up by less than half a percent from the previous year, but it doesn't do much about this or last year. Stop making claims with nothing to back them up. If you provided a source or two I'd read them, but you never do.

and illegal immigration is also down.If you two want to open up your own sanctuary city to feed all the misfits, by all means go at it.

Oh man, if only I didn't say that illegal immigration is a thing that needs to be worked on. It would certainly make you look foolish there, if only I could find it, but where could I do such a thing. Hmm....I don't know. Oh here it is, on the last page. I understand that going back a full page and reading is SUPER hard though. I believe you can do it though, I believe in you.

Illegal immigration is definitely something that should be curbed,....

A shame that reading is so hard in this day and age. I'll have to provide a source from this very thread, linking my post, but to you and Cusp it must be the media. PEGYM is fake news! PEGYM is evil media!

Also, you realize Trump has used illegal immigrants before, right? The man has benefited from using them before and has paid millions because of it. Weird how you're willing to overlook that. Oh, sorry, I had to use the "media" to do it, must be wrong then. You should have some non media sources to backup your claim, like a friend of a friend's brother's coke dealer.

But the continued spewing of untruths without even bothering to read both sides of the story is tiresome. You are both mouth pieces for the standard liberal talking points that are going to unravel with time. I'll make another batch of popcorn while I await your next post about the standard talking points. https://cdn.pegym.com/forums/images/smilies/bored.gif

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAH. *deep breath* AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. I'm being talked down to by someone that can't even respond to every question, provide sources, can't go back last page to see what I said, and has to insult people. As for your insults though you could learn to do better, because you're at like a 2nd grade level there. Seriously, I've made much worse insults about myself for a quick joke. Step it the fuck up. If you are going to insult people, especially me, do it right.

Thanks for the laugh though.

You want both sides of the story to be known then here's my advice. Now it may sound crazy and a bit outlandish, but here it is. USE. SOURCES.

You couldn't pass a high school civics course without your sources, so why do you think it's okay to not use them for your own opinion? If you want me to learn "both sides" then you need to provide your side. I am not going to believe much without something to back it up.

When you're worth a billion what's 130 g's? And if he did use campaign money he gets fined, not jailed or impeached. Hell Obama had to pay a 340,000 dollar fine for breaking campaign finance law in 2008. Why not bring that up?

Did you just use whataboutism for something Obama did 10 years ago to excuse something Trump is doing now? You did. You really did. Again, just because someone else does something illegal doesn't mean someone else gets away with it. To use my analogy from earlier because Jeffrey Dalmer killed people doesn't mean I get to and get away with it. You have to be incredibly biased to think that Obama being fined for something makes what Trump, or anyone else, is doing here okay. That's not how things work!

When Obama did shit people called him on it. Hell, I can call him out on it, because a sane person knows that when someone does something illegal or wrong they are called on it, not try and protect them just because they like him. Why exactly do you think Trump should get away with things? What makes him immune to the law?

Oh and if Trump is a billionaire why has this come so far? $400k+ should be simple so why did it take so long to pay Cohen, and why so much? Would be great to know if Trump is a billionaire, considering we haven't seen his tax returns for two years now, which by the way EVERY president has done in the past. We'd know for sure if he is, but a shame Trump is too much of a spineless little bitch to do it.

Then let's go through the "130,000" shall we? Turns out it's over $400,000 and Trump knew about the payments. But wait....wouldn't that mean Trump's earlier statements of not knowing about the payments and how much be false? Gee, I wonder why Trump would lie so much?

[NOWHARD Banned Find all posts View Profile Close NOWHARD]

When you're worth a billion what's 130 g's? And if he did use campaign money he gets fined, not jailed or impeached. Hell Obama had to pay a 340,000 dollar fine for breaking campaign finance law in 2008. Why not bring that up?

So if he really wanted silence from her why not 500.000, mind you that's if he did pay anything, As Trump said it was not paid? CUSP what happened in 2008 is history, this is now.

But would anybody pay for something they did not have?

NOWHARD

[not2big Senior Super ModeratorPEGym Hero Find all posts View Profile Close not2big]

The problem for me is that the situation reinforces my belief that Trump is a pathological liar with the moral integrity of a hyena. Not that those qualities should cause him to be impeached, based on historical precedents, but I can no longer trust him to tell the truth when it comes to important decision making when truth and facts are paramount to avoid disaster.

[TheZZMan Moderator Member of the Month Sept 2018PEGym Hero Find all posts View Profile Close TheZZMan]

Hey Donny, take a break and chill. So much of what you believe in is not true and hearsay. You can shrill all you want about what you believe is true, but getting your information from the mainstream media is you downfall. Again, you fail to research outside of your known sources (and this includes you Nowhard). In part that you are so strongly entrenched in your beliefs that you haven't bothered to investigate. I'll give you both a pass, but ask that you open up a little to the alternative view, its out there, just have to search for it. And Yes, I read all the same things you do, I also read other things that clearly contradict what you are saying. So, Nowhard, Yes, I question the BBC, and Donny, god help you....You have a chip on your shoulder that would take a Goliath to knock off. We got it, you both hate Trump, but get past that to look at policy and what is good for the country.

[TheGreatDivider Senior Member Member of the Month Dec 2015 Find all posts View Profile Close TheGreatDivider]

The problem for me is that the situation reinforces my belief that Trump is a pathological liar with the moral integrity of a hyena. Not that those qualities should cause him to be impeached, based on historical precedents, but I can no longer trust him to tell the truth when it comes to important decision making when truth and facts are paramount to avoid disaster.

Well, he is a politician after all. Trusting a politician to be honest is like trusting a cat to remain calm around a laser pointer...not can't be done.

[not2big Senior Super ModeratorPEGym Hero Find all posts View Profile Close not2big]

The ”main stream” media may not necessaarily be the most reliable source of information we have, but it is one of the best sources of information that was included in and protected by the Constitution of the United States. The founding fathers knew that the press needed to be preserved and protected in order to keep our political leaders honest and free from corruption. Fox and Friends and One American News are no better than CNN and MSNBC. However, they all exist to provide us with the best sources of information on the conduct of our government leaders. We need to evaluate both sides in order to form an opinion on how our leaders are carrying out the mandate of the people.

[NOWHARD Banned Find all posts View Profile Close NOWHARD]

Hey Donny, take a break and chill. So much of what you believe in is not true and hearsay. You can shrill all you want about what you believe is true, but getting your information from the mainstream media is you downfall. Again, you fail to research outside of your known sources (and this includes you Nowhard). In part that you are so strongly entrenched in your beliefs that you haven't bothered to investigate. I'll give you both a pass, but ask that you open up a little to the alternative view, its out there, just have to search for it. And Yes, I read all the same things you do, I also read other things that clearly contradict what you are saying. So, Nowhard, Yes, I question the BBC, and Donny, god help you....You have a chip on your shoulder that would take a Goliath to knock off. We got it, you both hate Trump, but get past that to look at policy and what is good for the country.

See ZZ you still have those rose tinted Trump sunglass's on, Trump was OK in his own backyard, look what he's doping now upsetting more of his allies, all because he wants you all to own not just one guns but lots more and the rest of the world it would seem, you must love him to keep supporting him doing this to your country, not really the way to get a piece prize they say he will get, I don't think so, and not forgetting how Trump wanted to nuke North Korea, again I don't think so.

ZZ throw away those glass's there clouding your life.

NOWHARD

[NOWHARD Banned Find all posts View Profile Close NOWHARD]

The problem for me is that the situation reinforces my belief that Trump is a pathological liar with the moral integrity of a hyena. Not that those qualities should cause him to be impeached, based on historical precedents, but I can no longer trust him to tell the truth when it comes to important decision making when truth and facts are paramount to avoid disaster.

There's a writer N2B who lived in Trumps pocket for a year ( he wrote a book on Trump) cant think of him name but what he wrote, is just what you writing about Trump, what he wrote I think it may have been before he become President backs up what your saying.

NOWHARD

[Dontrike Senior Member Find all posts View Profile Close Dontrike]

You can shrill all you want about what you believe is true

Sooooo much irony.

You can shrill all you want about what you believe is true, but getting your information from the mainstream media is you downfall.

And you don't get your information from "media"? You seem to think that getting information from any source is a bad thing when it comes to "the media", and in the past have asked me where I got my info, to which I say it doesn't matter, but it oddly matters to you. So where do you get your information from? If you think "the media" is so bad then how are you getting your info? Believe it or not Fox News, Breitbart, Dailymail, and other sites/publications, that I assume you use, would be media. Doesn't matter if you agree with them it's still media. So where do you get it if you can't get it from t.v., radio, paper, and internet? Those are all media. I'd love to hear your answer on this, because if you get it from any of those you can't hate "the media" since you use it.

The stuff you get your facts from, true or false, are media. So by your own logic the things you agree with, where you most likely get your information, can't be trusted as they are media.

That would be rather hypocritical if you did.

Again, you fail to research outside of your known sources (and this includes you Nowhard).

You seem to do the same thing. Difference being I'm showing my sources, you and Cusp on the otherhand, have done no such thing. You want the other side to be known then show your sources. It's as simple as that. You show your sources and then we'll talk about "the other side". You've yet to do that, so how can I trust info from you when you have nothing to back it up? Why should I trust your claims at face value?

Again, it doesn't matter who says any information as long as it's right. So far I'm the only one here backing up my claims, when you and Cusp can't do basic references, sourcing, or linking of what you claim. You couldn't pass a college history course without using those, why do you think you don't have to here? If I make a claim I make sure to back it up. You do not. If you want to be taken seriously and have a discussion you have to do the same.

In part that you are so strongly entrenched in your beliefs that you haven't bothered to investigate.

Doubling down on the irony, and hypocritical to boot.

I'll give you both a pass, but ask that you open up a little to the alternative view, its out there, just have to search for it.

Thrice the irony. Thrice is nice, I suppose.

And Yes, I read all the same things you do, I also read other things that clearly contradict what you are saying.

Do you now? Because so far you have yet to put an argument on any specific source I used nor put up any of your own sources as a rebuttal. Try starting there and maybe I'll consider your "reading the same things" claim to be true.

So, Nowhard, Yes, I question the BBC, and Donny, god help you....You have a chip on your shoulder that would take a Goliath to knock off. We got it, you both hate Trump, but get past that to look at policy and what is good for the country.

Oh no, another lame insult by someone that couldn't go back a page. Whatever will I do?

If you want to look at policy you have to bring up sources to your claims that what he's doing has improved things. You have to show your sources that the policies he has worked on has been a good thing. You have to show them if you want others to believe you, because no one is going to believe a claim with no source, that's how things work.

Let's take for example Trump claiming vaccines cause autism. He said that on the campaign trail, making that part of his policy? Do you have your sources that it's true? Do you have a source that says Trump is right? Are any of these sources not from the quack of a doctor that started it? Do you agree?

Let's take for example the wall. The current fence is 700 miles long. Do you know the kind of issues it had being built? How many people died putting it up? The amount of land the some properties and businesses are split by? A 700 mile long fence took $6 billion to put up. Now I'm not saying something like is or is not a good thing, as long as it does its job, but are issues with it, and to ignore them is asinine. Now let's go to Trump's wall. This wall in which we still don't how long it will be, with its length changing for the last two years, but we also don't know how tall it will be, with what materials, or anything else that will be on it (Trump himself even threw out the idea of the wall being covered in solar panels).

Now let's take this further with the wall. Taking the $6 billion figure above for the fence, tripling that to cover the entire border would take near $20 billion. Figures for Trump's wall has been 30-40 feet tall, and we don't know the width so let's say 10 feet. Now a 30ft. x 10ft. x 10ft. (as Trump tossed out 30 feet tall quite often on the campaign trail) section wall of concrete (taking a simple material) we can start gauging price on a simple scale of 3,000 cubic feet (1,000 cubic yards) per section. Now based on this site here, concrete costs $108 per cubic yard. So now we have the price of each section at 1,000 cubic yard x $108, and that comes to, and since you won't use sources I assume you won't do the math so I'll do it, $108,000.00 per section.

Now the border is just shy of 2,000 miles and that equates to 10,560,000 feet (or 3,520,000 yards). So 10,560,000 feet divided each 10 foot wide section we have, 1,056,000 sections. With the price of $108k per section and over 1 million sections we have a price of $114,048,000,000.00. So over $114 BILLION at the cheapest just for concrete alone, and that's only if nothing goes wrong and if the wall isn't taller. So right now we're at $114 billion for the cost, and that's if it's just concrete above the ground, not even below it. If another material is used that's more expensive it will only increase costs.

Then you have to account for digging out the ground, subbase, reinforcement, which might add to an even taller wall when it's underground, only adding to it, workers (and their insurance/lawsuits that might come from it), insurance for workers, machinery, maintenance while still being built, fixing mistakes during construction, and acquiring the land to do so. All of that is just to get it built, and I can't even begin to do that math on much of that as I'm not familiar with construction on the scale.

Then we have to account for acquiring the land and all the entails from buying it, to possibly being unable to and needing to go around (only adding to length), the environmental issues of building on certain parts of the land (again possibly adding to length if certain section can't be built on or more must be built to secure it further) and what it might destroy, the lawsuits from those (both private citizens and companies) trying to keep their land from eminent domain (and we both know Trump would use it) adding to the time it would take to build and costing even more.

Add on top of it still the extras for the wall, like areas for government employees and security to be at (offices), border entrances/exits so people can go through the border, posts for security to be at in small groups, electricity, most likely some form of internet, water access, phone lines, vehicle storage, potentially armory (?), and sewage or septic tanks. Then inside offices, border exits/entrances, we have the usual office supply needs.

Finally, once it's all built we then have increased security/employees, including upper levels of management/security, which will need to be increased, maintenance (in many forms) to keep it safe and standing with constant repairs, the maintenance on all utilities, insurance for employees/security, training for employees/security, so many different forms of legal mumbo jumbo I can't comprehend, and every other thing that any business needs for employees.

It's not that the wall is predicated on racism, or some false sense of "Dey tuk ur jerbs!!!", nor is it that it's an insanely inefficient use of money, but because. It. Isn't. Feasible. The logistics for such a thing are beyond astronomical. Then of course you have to include the price as to why it shouldn't be built. Upkeep and work alone is through the roof of even the tallest of buildings, many times over.

So there. There's a discussion just for you about the wall, using no media to discuss it. If you have an issue with that then that's on you. I have now jumped through every one of your hoops, and for a fucking fat ass like me that's hard to do, so maybe it's about time you do the same, but I'm sure you won't.

Well, he is a politician after all. Trusting a politician to be honest is like trusting a cat to remain calm around a laser pointer...not can't be done.

What amazes me is they they believe Trump to be an outsider. That he was against the "Hollywood elite" and other "elite", that he wasn't a politician and a successful business man. In reality though Trump is part of that "Hollywood elite", seeing as he gets checks from SAG (Screen Actors Guild), has had television shows, rubbed elbows with the Clintons at one point in time, is real estate mogul, and that as soon as you run for office you are considered a politician (going by proper definition, so ZZ you better not complain about "media").

Trump isn't the simple man that they think. He didn't start from nothing, his dad gave him millions, and Trump even stole some from his father. He has a history of using the normal working man, illegal immigrants, and being the "elite". Hell, Trump even owns some "media", which means by his supporters logic that Trump owned media can't be trusted.

He's literally everything his supporters say they hate. There's not one real thing about Trump, he's only in this for his own ego and no one else.

[NOWHARD Banned Find all posts View Profile Close NOWHARD]

True to my promise, below is what ZZ put in the shithole thread of mine. which according to ZZ was one of lots of threads on Trump I had put up I think this one is no 4, from a man as your read is more read than me.

Its the links at the bottom, as he says if you read it and nothing else, your go mad slowly, its ZZ favorite reading, can I say more.

I ask all where you get your news from? Those particularly from overseas. If from BBC, CNN, or other main stream media sites, you are fed talking points - what they want you to believe. This is and was how things were before the age of the internet where other voices could not be heard. To answer your question Nowhard, I am probably more schooled than you as far as reading and understanding current events. Let me explain why I say that.

If you only read and listen to main stream media, you follow their agenda, you follow their talking points. You listen only to what they want you to hear and think. You only get one side of the story. If by contrast (and god forbid) you follow Conservative Commentary you get the other side of the story. Conservative Commentary talks about the main stream medias story and then gives you facts that they won't tell you. They link to the main stream story and then add fact and logic to it. It cuts through the "talking points" and lets you make a decision based on all the facts. It gives you both sides in one article.

Truth is that the main stream media is hell bent on setting an agenda. That agenda is to paint Mr. Trump as a Buffoon and try endlessly to get him in a "Gotcha" moment. To date, none of the "Gotcha" stories have had any truth behind them. The "Dossier" of Trump collusion with Russia - Debunked as a paid propaganda piece paid for by Hillary Clinton to be a prime example. They make stuff up out of thin air and hope it sticks. Read the other side to get a true picture. And in the end, the other side may not sway your opinion, and that is fine. But it is disingenuous to comment without reviewing all sides of the story.

For a small sample of what is out there, I ask that you spend a few days reading some of the articles on this website. I say a few days, because it will take that long to clear your head of what you have been fed by the man stream media to begin to digest what the other side says. I think it will be eye opening for many. This is just one site I read daily. It is not a paid site, you are free to sign up and post if you desire, but read the articles and comments without signing up. I think it would interest all. Articles added all day and "must reads" added every morning.

Lucianne.com News Forum - HomePage

NOWHARD