What's new
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

POTUS 45.2 - Same arguments, different sides

Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: POTUS 45.2 - Same arguments, different sides

I believe Scooby has a line for this.

To humor you though, what do you think the plan for Trump & Co is? Are they looking for money, power, something else?

There's Trump, and there's & Co., and they are not the same. There's no question Trump is greedy, so money matters to him. But 12-year-olds are most often driven by needs and impulses, not by plans. Donald has the EQ of a 12-year-old with the power to grab women by the *****.
 
Re: POTUS 45.2 - Same arguments, different sides

It's been very interesting reading these threads the last few months. I had never read them much before that and don't remember ever posting. I think where most arguments go astray is that people are talking about two different elements of the same story and both are correct. For example if one person said today was the 30th and the other person said it was Monday they would both be right.

This is a generalization, and the people who post here are a very small sample size, but it seems like you are much more intent on defending Obama and other democrats than Republicans are in defending other Republicans. I realize that Trump and the Republican party are far from perfect and am completely comfortable with it.

Will not concede that you were completely wrong, will you? I guess we're all just talking about two different elements of the same story. Despite your being shown how wrong you were multiple times from multiple sources.

As far as your second paragraph. Wrong.
 
Re: POTUS 45.2 - Same arguments, different sides

So the Justice Department is saying they aren't going to defend Trump's order in court.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...migration-order-amid-questions-and-confusion/

Acting Attorney General Sally Yates has ordered Justice Department lawyers not to defend challenges to President Trump's immigration order temporarily banning entry into the United States for citizens of seven Muslim-majority countries and refugees ...

The NYT is reporting that Trump can fire her, but she's the only one authorized to sign foreign surveillance warrants.
 
Re: POTUS 45.2 - Same arguments, different sides

You know, the more posts of yours I see, the more I become astounded by your inability to process information and comprehend what that information is saying.

Took me six years to give up. Call me when you have. :)
 
Re: POTUS 45.2 - Same arguments, different sides

There's Trump, and there's & Co., and they are not the same. There's no question Trump is greedy, so money matters to him. But 12-year-olds are most often driven by needs and impulses, not by plans. Donald has the EQ of a 12-year-old with the power to grab women by the *****.

Trump is just a hungry ego that's never filled. His motives are for abnormal psychology to explain, but it's obvious that he is a narcissist sociopath with an infantile mental development and a desperate need to be loved that has and will never be met. He's a mentally ill dope.

The rest of the circle are just the typical stuff. Bannon is an ideologue. He's the Goebbels of the administration -- he believes in the white nationalism and xenophobia he spouts. He's the closest thing Trump has to an actual Trump Supporter near him.

Roger Stone is a conspiracy con man like Glenn Beck, Alex Jones, or the late, great Art Bell. They get off on the notoriety but mostly they've found a way to vacuum money from the rubes.

Kellyanne Conway is just a paid flack like Sean Spicer. They're getting a paycheck and opening up an endless future line of credit on the RWNJ circuit. They'll be writing books and booking tours and appearing as special consultants on Echo Chamber shows until they literally die on set atop a heap of money.

Paul Manafort is a paid agent of Putin. He's a traitor, by any definition of the word. George Washington would have executed him.

Jared Kushner is setting up Ivanka to play Marine Le Pen to Donald's Jean. Unless Trump is convicted and imprisoned someday, she will run some time in the 2020s, and she will likely win the GOP nomination assuming it is still a billionaire's cesspool.
 
Last edited:
Re: POTUS 45.2 - Same arguments, different sides

Will not concede that you were completely wrong, will you? I guess we're all just talking about two different elements of the same story. Despite your being shown how wrong you were multiple times from multiple sources.

As far as your second paragraph. Wrong.

The only thing I was wrong about, which I admitted, was that if someone was collecting SS benefits and had no mental record they would not be prohibited from owning guns if they had someone else manage their finances and/or went bankrupt.

I'll say this again, and it's really baffling for me to understand what is so controversial about this, but I really don't see how someone's financial situation should come into the equation on whether they are allowed to own guns or not. If a health professional thinks someone is a risk they should be banned from owning guns, full stop, regardless of how much money they have or when they pay or don't pay their bills. The opposite should also be true.
 
Re: POTUS 45.2 - Same arguments, different sides

It's been very interesting reading these threads the last few months. I had never read them much before that and don't remember ever posting. I think where most arguments go astray is that people are talking about two different elements of the same story and both are correct. For example if one person said today was the 30th and the other person said it was Monday they would both be right.

This is a generalization, and the people who post here are a very small sample size, but it seems like you are much more intent on defending Obama and other democrats than Republicans are in defending other Republicans. I realize that Trump and the Republican party are far from perfect and am completely comfortable with it.

Actually we just want you to admit you either cant read, or are flat out lying Flaggy style with your gun nut nonsense. When even the sources you post dont say what you think they say but you keep asserting they do (like "alternative words" or something) we are not going to brush it aside just because you want us all to pretend it never happened.

You can pretend this is because you are a Righty or a Republican, but believe e it is because you are so full of crap we can smell you half a continent away ;)
 
It's been very interesting reading these threads the last few months. I had never read them much before that and don't remember ever posting. I think where most arguments go astray is that people are talking about two different elements of the same story and both are correct. For example if one person said today was the 30th and the other person said it was Monday they would both be right.

This is a generalization, and the people who post here are a very small sample size, but it seems like you are much more intent on defending Obama and other democrats than Republicans are in defending other Republicans. I realize that Trump and the Republican party are far from perfect and am completely comfortable with it.
You are comfortable with a president who isn't allowing citizens back into their country after traveling abroad?
 
Re: POTUS 45.2 - Same arguments, different sides

Trump is just a hungry ego that's never filled. His motives are for abnormal psychology to explain, but it's obvious that he is a narcissist sociopath with an infantile mental development and a desperate need to be loved that has and will never be met. He's a mentally ill dope.

The rest of the circle are just the typical stuff. Bannon is an ideologue. He's the Goebbels of the administration -- he believes in the white nationalism and xenophobia he spouts. He's the closest thing Trump has to an actual Trump Supporter near him.

Roger Stone is a conspiracy con man like Glenn Beck, Alex Jones, or the late, great Art Bell. They get off on the notoriety but mostly they've found a way to vacuum money from the rubes.

Kellyanne Conway is just a paid flack like Sean Spicer. They're getting a paycheck and opening up an endless future line of credit on the RWNJ circuit. They'll be writing books and booking tours and appearing as special consultants on Echo Chamber shows until they literally die on set atop a heap of money.

Paul Manafort is a paid agent of Putin. He's a traitor, by any definition of the word. George Washington would have executed him.

Jared Kushner is setting up Ivanka to play Marine Le Pen to Donald's Jean. Unless Trump is convicted and imprisoned someday, she will run some time in the 2020s, and she will likely win the GOP nomination assuming it is still a billionaire's cesspool.

Didnt KellyAnne just say she thinks media members who go after Trump should be fired? She wont have much of a career post White House if that is the case...unless she wants to get on her knees for the cretins at Faux.

Although since it is all but a guarantee that Trump is going after Net Neutrality next who knows...
 
Re: POTUS 45.2 - Same arguments, different sides

The only thing I was wrong about, which I admitted, was that if someone was collecting SS benefits and had no mental record they would not be prohibited from owning guns if they had someone else manage their finances and/or went bankrupt.

I'll say this again, and it's really baffling for me to understand what is so controversial about this, but I really don't see how someone's financial situation should come into the equation on whether they are allowed to own guns or not. If a health professional thinks someone is a risk they should be banned from owning guns, full stop, regardless of how much money they have or when they pay or don't pay their bills. The opposite should also be true.

Look, the only reason social security comes into this is because it is a database of people, some of whom are mentally ill, and this was a convenient way to get a list of people who are medically diagnosed with a VERY serious mental illness.

If there was a database of people who were mentally ill, this rule wouldn't be necessary.

And again, it has nothing to do with means. STOP SAYING THAT. It has to do with whether someone else has to manage their benefits payments on behalf of them.
 
Didnt KellyAnne just say she thinks media members who go after Trump should be fired? She wont have much of a career post White House if that is the case...unless she wants to get on her knees for the cretins at Faux.

Although since it is all but a guarantee that Trump is going after Net Neutrality next who knows...

She reminds me of the scary ventriloquist puppet my grandparents used to have in the toy closet
 
Re: POTUS 45.2 - Same arguments, different sides

You are comfortable with a president who isn't allowing citizens back into their country after traveling abroad?

I haven't heard anything about citizens not being allowed back. The problem is permanent residents (green cards) and student visa holders not being allowed back in.
 
Re: POTUS 45.2 - Same arguments, different sides

A couple of people with dual-passports were detained for further questioning.
 
I haven't heard anything about citizens not being allowed back. The problem is permanent residents (green cards) and student visa holders not being allowed back in.

I thought dual citizens US and one of the 7 countries were being held up.
 
Re: POTUS 45.2 - Same arguments, different sides

The only thing I was wrong about, which I admitted, was that if someone was collecting SS benefits and had no mental record they would not be prohibited from owning guns if they had someone else manage their finances and/or went bankrupt.

I'll say this again, and it's really baffling for me to understand what is so controversial about this, but I really don't see how someone's financial situation should come into the equation on whether they are allowed to own guns or not. If a health professional thinks someone is a risk they should be banned from owning guns, full stop, regardless of how much money they have or when they pay or don't pay their bills. The opposite should also be true.


OMG, I can't believe I'm doing this...

likely the only way to determine if someone has met a rigorous definition of mental illness that disqualifies them from purchasing a firearm USING DATA READILY AVAILABLE TO THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT is if they have been deemed mentally unfit to manage their financial affairs

there is no federal database of everyone with mental illness. there is a federal database of people so mentally ill they can not be trusted to manage their social security payments

for the millionth time IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH HOW MUCH MONEY THEY HAVE OR IF THEY PAY THEIR BILLS. You really can't be this stupid, right? I mean after it is explained to you a million times you still think it has something to do with how much money they have or paying bills.
 
Re: POTUS 45.2 - Same arguments, different sides

100 years ago today

January 30 – Pershing's troops in Mexico begin withdrawing back to the United States. They reach Columbus, New Mexico February 5.
 
Re: POTUS 45.2 - Same arguments, different sides

You know how I know this is a distraction? They didn't even take the time to get this guy. Or they did and intentionally let him through.

They probably interviewed 10 people who were registered in at least two states. The first person to answer "one" when asked how many states they were registered in was probably hired on the spot.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top