OFFICIAL: Donald Trump thread.

[travestyny]

Don’t mind 1sad69. He’s paid by the Koch brothers to come here and post right wing agenda crap. His job is to dissuade only. Truth is irrelevant. He’s hoping to get people to ignore you or annoy you so much so that you leave and be one less for him to battle.

I sh ited down that fools throat so much he won’t ever respond to be again. He will side bust of some other poster post but he won’t dare do it directly to me.

Get up the good fight and don’t let that simp win. He’s not going anywhere because he gets paid. He has been on this site for a decade at least and has never visited the actual boxing pages.

Yea that’s who yiur spinning your wheels with. A texan simpleton.

LMAO. Exactly. The dude is nothing but a cheerleader, and the dudes whose ears he is always whispering into need to start using their brains. He talks a lot of shlt but when it's time to step up, he bails out and tries to get others to fight his fights because he isn't man enough to handle it himself (which is how Bobby Deez got destroyed for trying to take up for him, and he instigated so much regarding Glove's fight, but after the fight he just ran off as if nothing happened).

The dude has an inferiority complex that makes him deathly afraid to engage in conversations himself because he feels inadequate when he realizes he is incapable of making any solid points and gets obliterated. Then he feels like a loser and rants about others "winning" to try to shift the scenario from him being outgunned to him being bullied.

Poor little dude. His balls have likely never descended, or Sunspace snatched them off him long ago, and 1sad replaced them with pom poms.

[Lords]

Don’t mind 1sad69. He’s paid by the Koch brothers to come here and post right wing agenda crap. His job is to dissuade only. Truth is irrelevant. He’s hoping to get people to ignore you or annoy you so much so that you leave and be one less for him to battle.

LOL

I could see there being truth to this.

[GGG Gloveking]

I thought I explained it to you, and it was quite simple. We actually agreed on this that there was no exoneration. For different reasons, but I stated that your point is actually what my point was as well, so I don't know what the issue was.



What???? When did I complain about that? You might just be making things up right now. All I said was that they should be able to look at the unredacted report. I didn't realize that before impeachment proceedings also had an overbearing AG protecting the prez. If that's part of the normal proceedings, then yes I do feel that's unfair.



Again, I only sent you what he said because he mentioned that he believed the threshold was met. If you don't, that's fine. But it seems that you haven't read any or know anything about what's in the report, so asking your opinion on it is worthless. Not like I could have known that before.



Again, I thought he was lobbying for people to actually read it before deciding what to do. You're being dismissive and saying that he should just do something about it on his own. Well that's your opinion and that's fine. And if you don't want to discuss what's in the report, so be it. There was certainly no need for any hostility here.

Let's talk about exoneration for a second. There is no exoneration, because there is no crime, and even further and more correctly, there is no conviction to be exonerated for.

In criminal context the term exonerate refers to a state where a person convicted of a crime is later proved to be innocent.

https://definitions.uslegal.com/e/exoneration/

So, until we have a conviction to be overturned, let's not continue to erroneously use the term exonerate, please.

Rereading your part about fairness, I misread it the first time. The DOJ read it and published a summary. The members of Congress are more than welcome to read it in it's entirety, and if and when charges are brought forth, it should have a little more urgency in being read. Until then, the DOJ summary should suffice.

As far as my opinion being worthless, maybe we should follow the advice you posted from Mr Amash. Until anyone has read all 400 pages, no one should just be pulling snippets out that fit their agenda.

As far as Amash lobbying for the report to be read, I simply feel that Mr Amash should act less like a lobbyist and more like a legislator. I certainly don't feel like I'm being dismissive by saying he should bring forth charges. And if he does bring forth charges in the 435 member House he's a part of, it certainly isn't "acting alone"

The roughly two year investigation has been done. The report has been written and submitted. The time for acting is now... Unless it's not close enough to election for Team D...

[1bad65]

I feel like we're spinning wheels. I sat and read for days, you going back and forth over guilty/not guilty as if Mr Trump has been named a defendant and put on trial. I asked if the threshold for a crime had been met. Seems like we went in a big circle and got right back to that question when you showed me the congressman that thought it did. Even before I knew he had plans on running himself, I said he should bring forth proceedings if he felt that way. After having you complain that the same impeachment proceedings that were good enough to get two former presidents impeached somehow weren't fair, and complain because I won't accept Rep Amash "summary", we're right back at "if he thinks that's the case, he needs to act accordingly".

And that's where we're at. If he, or any other members of Congress, feel that there is something sufficient in the 400 pages of Mueller Time, then now is the time to put up or shut up. Stop giving us word play, and put some ink on paper

And who told you days ago this would be the inevitable end result?


Now, just take the proper corrective action so it doesn't happen to you again.

[1bad65]

LOL

I could see there being truth to this.

Well if I'm being paid by people like the Kock bros, I must be doing one heck of a job making you superfans look ridiculous.

But he and the other D superfans say I keep 'losing' though.


Now ask your 'lawyer' friend why he's still salty my college dropout self had to correct him twice in one thread about case law.....

[GGG Gloveking]

And who told you days ago this would be the inevitable end result?


Now, just take the proper corrective action so it doesn't happen to you again.

I'm interested in seeing if he still uses the term exonerate in light of the legal definition and that there's no conviction to be exonerated of

[1bad65]

LOL

I could see there being truth to this.

Also, ask your 'lawyer' buddy why I'd go through all that hassle to get people to leave so I'll have less people to "battle" when it's common knowledge that I simply put annoying/cheerleading/low-hanging type posters like him on my Ignore List and move on?


You'd be wise in the future to ignore the advice of someone who you met on the Internet and lied about who he is. Just a friendly word of advice. Take it or leave it.

[1bad65]

I'm interested in seeing if he still uses the term exonerate in light of the legal definition and that there's no conviction to be exonerated of

Dude!!! He won't ever budge.

Arent you figuring that out yet????

You're a good guy, but if you want to look foolish by letting a base troll pull your strings and then smugly insult you, be my guest.

But, and this ain't easy to say, even though I like you I'll be forced to place you on my Ignore List if you keep gumming up the thread with Travesty nonsense.

(Though unlike most I put on my List, I would take you off if I saw you'd finally stopped playing his stupid, pointless games.)

[denium]

Don’t mind 1sad69. He’s paid by the Koch brothers to come here and post right wing agenda crap. His job is to dissuade only. Truth is irrelevant. He’s hoping to get people to ignore you or annoy you so much so that you leave and be one less for him to battle.

I sh ited down that fools throat so much he won’t ever respond to be again. He will side bust of some other poster post but he won’t dare do it directly to me.

Get up the good fight and don’t let that simp win. He’s not going anywhere because he gets paid. He has been on this site for a decade at least and has never visited the actual boxing pages.

Yea that’s who yiur spinning your wheels with. A texan simpleton.

Says the "lawyer" who can't spell for ****.

If you're going to make up an occupation instead of admitting you're a Starbucks barista, at least make it something remotely believable.

[travestyny]

Let's talk about exoneration for a second. There is no exoneration, because there is no crime, and even further and more correctly, there is no conviction to be exonerated for.

In criminal context the term exonerate refers to a state where a person convicted of a crime is later proved to be innocent.

https://definitions.uslegal.com/e/exoneration/

So, until we have a conviction to be overturned, let's not continue to erroneously use the term exonerate, please.

Jesus Christ. Why are you still going on and on about "exoneration" when both of us have agreed that saying Trump was exonerated is Incorrect.

Do you want to send a memo to Trump about this? He's the one who had some of you in here saying he was exonerated. Once again, WE ARE SAYING THE SAME THING. TRUMP WAS NOT EXONERATED.

Correct your president!!!!

Trump on Mueller report: 'Complete and total exoneration'

https://thehill.com/homenews/adminis...al-exoneration

I'm happy we can agree that there was no exoneration. But I'm not sure why you want to keep telling me that we agree!!!!

Rereading your part about fairness, I misread it the first time. The DOJ read it and published a summary. The members of Congress are more than welcome to read it in it's entirety, and if and when charges are brought forth, it should have a little more urgency in being read. Until then, the DOJ summary should suffice.

According to you, but Mueller is saying that the summary is off base.

As far as my opinion being worthless, maybe we should follow the advice you posted from Mr Amash. Until anyone has read all 400 pages, no one should just be pulling snippets out that fit their agenda.

I only meant worthless to the extent that you seemed to be saying you are not aware of anything in the report. There are plenty of websites that break down some of the main issues in the report, and you don't have to read the entire 400 pages.

As far as Amash lobbying for the report to be read, I simply feel that Mr Amash should act less like a lobbyist and more like a legislator. I certainly don't feel like I'm being dismissive by saying he should bring forth charges. And if he does bring forth charges in the 435 member House he's a part of, it certainly isn't "acting alone"

The reason that I passed along what he said was because you were talking about reaching the threshold of a crime, and that's what he was discussing. I would have thought you would go back and read his tweets to see if they have any merit. Instead, you dismissed it and said that he should just bring the POTUS up on charges.

Again, I thought you might want a different opinion, but I should have known that the Trump boys don't want another opinion. My bad. Any opinion that doesn't fit in with already held beliefs are dismissed. I don't know why you guys can't just keep it real.

The roughly two year investigation has been done. The report has been written and submitted. The time for acting is now... Unless it's not close enough to election for Team D...

I'm pretty sure there is still a fight over receiving the unredacted report. That's the action that is taking place right now. You purposely respond about this as if you are living under a rock.


This was just written about 4 hours ago!

Trump’s Position on the Mueller Report is Legally Ridiculous — and Dangerous

Congress needs the full report to do its job.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/20/o...er-report.html

You do realize there is currently a subpoena for the report, right?