President Trump

Hm. I wonder what Movie Forums is talking about in the political threads?



*leaves thread*

And I would never call him "lil".

And I would never call him "lil".

Hm. I wonder what Movie Forums is talking about in the political threads?



*leaves thread*

Maybe because Mofos dont just talk about movies. They also talk about...you know....things happening in the world.

Thanks for the heads-up.

Thanks for the heads-up.

I was answering your original question.

It strikes me as ironic how certain groups of people can label terrorism as one of our top priorities while at the same time wanting gun laws so loose that everyone has access to guns. I mean, is it worse if a Muslim shoots up an office building but not a big deal if it's a white guy shooting up an office building? Strange thinking.

Well my apologies. I dont know why you felt the need to bring terrorists into it, though. I didnt give an opinion on gun control in usa, or terrorists; I simply asked a question. And yes you do seem rather twitchy. The snipey are you ok makes you look all itchy and scratchy.

Yeah, my comment said "listen to yourself." Listen to how you're flying off the handle because all I did was answer your question, but you either didn't understand what I was answering or didn't like the answer. I figured you thought I was answering something else, so I pointed out your exact question I was answering for clarification's sake. My comment on terrorism was relevant to the fact that Trump has made terrorism his number 1 priority but apparently he isn't interested in making sure people with mental illnesses aren't listed in the national database to keep guns out of the hands of people who could potentially pose a threat. But you fly off the handle at that. I asked you if you were okay, because you seem unhinged.

So I sent you a private message because these things don't belong here, but you sink to new lows by making it public. My PM didn't insult you or attack you, so there was no need for what you did.

Naturally, this political back-and-forth hasn't been very pleasant and the forum's been pretty intolerant of Trump support. The intent's been to dig up all the dirt used to try and bury Trump in the campaign, to no avail by the way, again. It's the same dirt. It didn't work in keeping him out of the Presidency, and now it's the same playbook. So here is my understanding of these events.

John McCain vs Donald Trump
After a Trump event in in Arizona on July 16th, 2015, Senator John McCain commented on the candidate's immigration proposal: "It's very bad... This performance with our friend out in Phoenix is very hurtful to me, because what he did was fire up the crazies... We have a very extreme element within our Republican Party... Now he galvanized them, he's really got them activated."

Kinda insulting his own constituents there. And this is how deep the Trump sentiment goes. Now, you can look on the internet and John McCain has done "Criminals crossing the border let's build a fence and keep them out" videos before, but this is a feud between John McCain and Donald Trump. Now this statement by McCain sparked a public feud between the two figures. During a Q&A, Trump was asked about the comments, and Trump said-

Trump: "McCain insulted me and he insulted everybody in that room. And I supported him for President. I raised $1 Million for him. I supported him, he lost, he let us down. But he lost and I never liked him much after that 'cause I don't like losers. But, but- Frank, Frank, let me get to it."

Frank Luntz: "He's a war hero. He's a war hero..."

Trump: "He's not a war hero..."

Frank Luntz: "He's a war hero."

Trump: "He is a war hero..."

Luntz: "Five and a half years in a Vietnamese prison camp..."

Trump: "He's a war hero because he was captured. I like people who weren't captured. So he's a war hero..."

Luntz: "Do you agree with that?"

Trump: "He's a war hero because he was captured, okay? I believe, perhaps, he's a war hero. But right now he said some very bad things about a lot of people. So what I said is, John McCain I disagree with him- these people aren't crazy."

So Trump said McCain is a war hero three or four times. So what does the national media do? Headlines! NBC! CBS! ABC! Washington Post! Politico! The Daily Beast! They suddenly extrapolate Donald Trump's personal feud with John McCain to all veterans, and The Daily Beast declares Donald Trump a Draft Dodger!

Draft dodger!

So, was Donald Trump a draft dodger? Of course this all sparked off those claims.

New York Daily News and author/biographer Wayne Barrett declare Donald Trump dodged the Vietnam Draft with a "bulls--t" injury.

Donald Trump had four student deferments and a temporary medical disqualification for bone spurs in his foot, but was still entered in the draft- getting number 356 out of 365. His high number never got picked.


So he ended up getting entered into the draft- which meant by definition Donald Trump is not a draft dodger, and never got called.


Pundit Fact, a site powered by PolitiFact.com states: "To the best of our knowledge, no one has charged Donald Trump with with violating the Selective Service law. His student deferments were routine. And unless someone has new information, there is no legal issue with his medical deferment."

So actually, by saying he's a draft dodger, and faked or falsified or exaggerated his medical injury, they're accusing Donald Trump of a crime. Of a crime. And this has never been proven.

Trump Campaign Statement: "Although he was not a fan of the Vietnam War, yet another disaster for our country, had his draft number been selected he would have proudly served and he is tremendously grateful to all those who did."

Libya!

Do it surgically. I see this as a situation with some subtlety to it. You have to be able to think. That's supposed to be a thing around here. So there's the video where Trump voices approval for action against Qaddafi in Libya in 2011. Yet Trump is a private citizen in 2011, he doesn't have influence over the operation. Obama did. Secretary of State Clinton did. And those two made a mess of Libya. Now people are trying to use Libya as this strike against Donald Trump, who supported action, yet did not influence operations. So how is it that an operation led by the Obama and Clinton administration becomes a talking-point against Trump? That's curious. It's possible to be in favor of action against a nation, yet have different strategic ideas. Trump would have been better off making this distinction clear himself. Regardless, it's incomplete and off to use Libya as a direct Trump failure, when the operation was RUN by Obama and Clinton.

Anyways, that's another side of the story you don't hear on this board. Pretty safe bet this message will get all cut up and ripped apart like other favorable-to-President-Trump ones on here. Thrilling!

Remember to Make America Great Again



And Go Noles!

Fact check: what did Trump's tweets about Obama's 'wiretaps' mean?

On Saturday morning, without presenting evidence, Donald Trump accused former president Barack Obama of illegal wiretapping. Using Twitter, the president also mounted a defense of his attorney general, Jeff Sessions, and his meetings with the Russian ambassador.

The six tweets appeared to originate with rumors circulating in rightwing media, especially talk radio and Breitbart News – recently run by Steve Bannon, now the president’s chief strategist – about a “silent coup” against Trump, by members of the Obama administration.



Sessions met Russian ambassador Sergey Kislyak in July 2016, at an event on the sidelines of the Republican National Convention in Cleveland. The event was co-hosted by the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank, and Global Cleveland, in coordination with the RNC and the Department of State.

The state department has invited ambassadors to both party conventions for decades, as an educational program. Several dozen ambassadors from around the world attended the Republican convention this year, according to the Cleveland Plain Dealer.

According to a justice department official speaking anonymously to the Washington Post when it first reported the story, the meeting was casual: Kislyak and other ambassadors approached Sessions after he finished giving a speech. Sessions then spoke with Kislyak alone, the official said, citing a former staffer for the senator. To say the meeting was “set up by the Obama administration” is false.

Nor was the second meeting, held on 8 September in Sessions’ office, arranged by the state department. Justice department officials have said Sessions met Kislyak given the senator’s role on the armed services committee, but 20 of 26 members of that panel have said they did not meet with the ambassador in 2016.

Where did the claim come from? On Friday, Breitbart News published an article claiming that the state department “sponsored” the July meeting.



Presidents cannot legally order a wire tap operation unilaterally: federal agents and attorneys would have had to convince a federal judge either of probable cause of a serious crime or that the target of the tap was the agent of a foreign power.

However, the former British MP Louise Mensch reported in November that the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (Fisa) court had granted the FBI a surveillance warrant of “US persons” to investigate possible contacts between Russian banks and Trump’s associates. In January, the BBC reported that the Fisa court had issued its warrant in October.

Also in January, the Guardian reported that the Fisa court had turned down an initial request for a warrant, and that the judge had asked investigators to narrow the terms of their search.

On Saturday, Obama denied through a spokesman that he or the White House had any role ordering a wire tap.

“A cardinal rule of the Obama administration was that no White House official ever interfered with an independent investigation led by the Department of Justice,” said spokesman Kevin Lewis. “As part of that practice neither President Obama nor any White House official ever ordered surveillance on any US citizen. Any suggestion otherwise is simply false.”

The spokesperson did not deny that intelligence officials had requested or employed surveillance of Trump associates.

Though leaks from the intelligence community have shown that Trump associates, including former campaign chief Paul Manafort, former adviser Carter Page and former national security adviser Michael Flynn, are included in an investigation into Kremlin activities, it remains unclear what direct evidence of wrongdoing, if any, the agencies have gathered.

It is not unusual for high-level campaign officials to meet ambassadors, but those meetings are typically with representatives of US allies, like Britain and France, and not with those of rivals such as Russia. So far, denials have proven more damning to Trump officials than the content of their conversations: Flynn was caught having misled the vice-president about his contacts with Kislyak and Sessions testified under oath that he “did not have communications with the Russians” during the campaign.



Only ambassadors from nations with the most acrimonious relations with the US – or no relations at all – do not visit the White House. Even the cold war did not deter Russian ambassadors from visiting it; Cuba sent its first ambassador in decades in 2015.

This information is not “just out” – over its eight years the Obama White House reported most of its visitors to the public, a practice so far discontinued by the Trump White House. On Friday, Breitbart reported that Kislyak visited the White House 22 times in seven years, citing a Dally Caller story that used the old logs.



It would not be legal for a sitting president to unilaterally order surveillance; a federal court would have to approve the surveillance. Trump seems to acknowledge this in an oblique way, with an allusion to the report that the Fisa court at first turned down an initial request for a warrant.

Though Trump claimed he “just found out” about reported surveillance, he is privy to intelligence briefings in which officials would have informed him about such operations. Both Obama and Trump received these briefings during the transition, for instance, reportedly, about an unsubstantiated dossier regarding links between Trump’s campaign and Russian officials.



Trump presents baseless rumor as fact here, saying Obama “was tapping my phones in October” without providing any evidence of the former president’s agency in the investigation or of the surveillance itself. The Obama administration did not formally accuse Russia of interfering in the election until early October 2016.



Again, Trump presents a claim without evidence, this time as condemnation. As he earlier compared the overall Russia investigation to “McCarthyism” – the 1950s anti-communist crusade by Senator Joe McCarthy, who often resorted to baseless claims – Trump now invokes the Watergate scandal, in which President Richard Nixon’s White House spied on his political opponents.

Unlike that scandal, however, which involved illegal break-ins, intimidation and surveillance by people with links to the White House, the current investigations are being handled by federal courts and intelligence agencies that fall under the authority of the attorney general. On Thursday, Sessions recused himself.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/factch...bYK?li=BBnb7Kz

Fact: President Trump is a complete whiny bitch

He is definitely a whiny lil man bitch. Someone needs to keep him away from all social media. The guy behaves like a tantruming toddler.

And now, was this guy deprived of oxygen at birth? He hails Australia as the immigration model. WTH??? We've been condemned by the UN for our atrocious treatment of asylum seekers.

well it is true. Trump is whiny.

His hands are.

Maybe because Mofos dont just talk about movies. They also talk about...you know....things happening in the world.

Thanks for the heads-up.