Jump to content

Trump is the President


Recommended Posts

31 minutes ago, IronJimbo said:

Easily outdone by the four years of crying by the Democrats and the media (but I repeat myself)

But don't let the facts get in the way

You really think the last four years comes close to to the reaction of Trump post election?

Hilary conceded  

Hillary Clinton congratulated Donald Trump on his win in the middle of the night after election day on Nov. 8, 2016. She formally conceded before noon on Nov. 9.

https://www.latimes.com/opinion/story/2020-11-11/hillary-clinton-showed-donald-trump-how-to-concede

This was actually about your crying though

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 6.6k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

The sandbox is for non Tri related topics.  It’s not a place for people to carry on like idiots. 

If the last few months have taught me anything it’s that when you peel back the thin veneer the US is a mighty screwed up place on oh so many fronts.   

A few posts of the last 24hrs have been deleted. I don't have time to go over the previous 96 pages.  If it's not adding value to the thread, discussing politics in a respectful manner towards th

Posted Images

1 hour ago, BarryBevan said:

Only out done by people being outraged about others getting upset about them running the wrong way around the run track, 3 years later, take that you F*&&*er running counter clockwise

Have you been running anti-clockwise around Stromlo cross country running track?!? 😱

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, BogFrog said:

Have you been running anti-clockwise around Stromlo cross country running track?!? 😱

No I have not, but I do like to run opposites as do many runners for balance, loading and injury prevention. On a quiet track with no one there I do this, a few years back I had a big cry on here about my neighbour who dogmatically ran at me even though I was there first. I cried and dug in not quite as much as people are here with Trump.

But no I'm not running at Stromlo right now, just steady aerobic stuff, but I'm going for a sub 20 park run this week if it kills me

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yep, if I'm on an aths track alone, I'll do intervals both directions, if not alone, I'll warm up/down "the wrong way" on the outside lane, but adhere to protocol when running efforts. 

At Stromlo there are clear signs saying clockwise only...  I obey. I don't mind the occasional runner going "the wrong way" as long as they stay wide. Groups of runners going the wrong way and not giving way bug me...

Good luck on the sub 20. Where are you planning it?  I think i'm nearly back to that pace myself now. Reckon I'll do a 5km time trial on the crit track at Stromlo this week...

Edited by BogFrog
Sp
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, IronJimbo said:

Easily outdone by the four years of crying by the Democrats and the media (but I repeat myself)

But don't let the facts get in the way

Yes we know you make up your own facts to suit yourself and avoid actual facts like the one just above here. 

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, BogFrog said:

Yep, if I'm on an aths track alone, I'll do intervals both directions, if not alone, I'll warm up/down "the wrong way" on the outside lane, but adhere to protocol when running efforts. 

At Stromlo there are clear signs saying clockwise only...  I obey. I don't mind the occasional runner going "the wrong way" as long as they stay wide. Groups of runners going the wrong way and not giving way bug me...

Good luck on the sub 20. Where are you planning it?  I think i'm nearly back to that pace myself now. Reckon I'll do a 5km time trial on the crit track at Stromlo this week...

Hoping to get a Xmas park run if they run one, if not maybe just Tuggeranong as if you can get to the turn around in 9:30 you can jog it back

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, IronJimbo said:

Easily outdone by the four years of crying by the Democrats and the media (but I repeat myself)

But don't let the facts get in the way

Did the dems propose martial law:

https://kyma.com/cnn-us-politics/2020/12/19/heated-oval-office-meeting-included-talk-of-special-counsel-martial-law-as-trump-advisers-clash/

They accepted the result of the election, when they had suitable evidence they exercised their constitutional rights to go down the impeachment path which ended in the Senate.

By your own standards stated many times, its okay for Trump to challenge using every lever he has as the constitutional framework permits it. So the dems were merely meeting the standard you support, though they actually had evidence, Sondland Vindman.

Remember we are supposed to overturn an election on the basis of affadavits!! Anyway its all moot, and unlikely to get a reasoned response.

But I'll leave you with this. Would you support the Governor General exercising powers as written?

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 20/12/2020 at 11:39 AM, BarryBevan said:

You really think the last four years comes close to to the reaction of Trump post election?

Hilary conceded  

Hillary Clinton congratulated Donald Trump on his win in the middle of the night after election day on Nov. 8, 2016. She formally conceded before noon on Nov. 9.

https://www.latimes.com/opinion/story/2020-11-11/hillary-clinton-showed-donald-trump-how-to-concede

This was actually about your crying though

Is that the same Hillary Clinton that was calling Trump an "illegitimate President" as recently as this October?

Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, BarryBevan said:

Did the dems propose martial law:

 

Not that I'm aware of

And going by CNN's recent record when quoting 'unnamed sources,' I have strong doubts that the Republicans did either

Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Peter said:

Where the video of this later dream?

Troll,

I am not interested in your opinion.  Do not ask me questions, because they will no longer be answered 

Any future post from you directed to me or written about me will be considered by myself, and should be considered by everyone else, to be provocation 

Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, IronJimbo said:

I am not interested in your opinion.  Do not ask me questions, because they will no longer be answered 

 

Sort of defeats the purpose of being on a forum doesn't it? 

  • Like 4
  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, IronJimbo said:

Is that the same Hillary Clinton that was calling Trump an "illegitimate President" as recently as this October?

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/hillary-clinton-trump-impeachment-illegitimate-president-2016-election-cbs-a9122986.html

Yes she did, but she  conceded and did not contest the election in over 50 court cases or directly pressure officials to change the result.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, IronJimbo said:

Troll,

I am not interested in your opinion.  Do not ask me questions, because they will no longer be answered 

Any future post from you directed to me or written about me will be considered by myself, and should be considered by everyone else, to be provocation 

Thanks but you can speak for yourself, I think that you might find you are a bit on your Jack Jones here

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, IronJimbo said:

Is that the same Hillary Clinton that was calling Trump an "illegitimate President" as recently as this October?

You really think the last four years comes close to to the reaction of Trump post election?

Hilary conceded  

Hillary Clinton congratulated Donald Trump on his win in the middle of the night after election day on Nov. 8, 2016. She formally conceded before noon on Nov. 9.

https://www.latimes.com/opinion/story/2020-11-11/hillary-clinton-showed-donald-trump-how-to-concede

Sort of missing the point, is Hilary'd behaviour equivalent to suprressing votes, limiting the USPS so they couldn't process votes?

Directly pressuring  officals to deny the will off the people?

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, BarryBevan said:

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/hillary-clinton-trump-impeachment-illegitimate-president-2016-election-cbs-a9122986.html

Yes she did, but she  conceded and did not contest the election in over 50 court cases or directly pressure officials to change the result.

Her party just launched a three year investigation into nothing based on a bogus report that she  omissions, and then impeached him for doing his job

Let's see in four years' time how each side has reacted to losing an election 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, BarryBevan said:

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/hillary-clinton-trump-impeachment-illegitimate-president-2016-election-cbs-a9122986.html

Yes she did, but she  conceded and did not contest the election in over 50 court cases or directly pressure officials to change the result.

Which section of the constitution requires the losing party to concede?

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, IronJimbo said:

Her party just launched a three year investigation into nothing based on a bogus report that she  omissions, and then impeached him for doing his job

Let's see in four years' time how each side has reacted to losing an election 

 

You wonder why Peter typed what he did

Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, IronJimbo said:

Which section of the constitution requires the losing party to concede?

Apologies if I missed it somewhere else but does this statement mean that you believe Trump has lost the election? Or do you still believe he has won it?

Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, IronJimbo said:

Not really

There are plenty of other forum members whose opinions matter

I love it. 

You are on a Trump thread and picking and choosing who can and cant ask questions. 

Don would be so proud! 

  • Like 3
  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, IronJimbo said:

Which section of the constitution requires the losing party to concede?

Nothing, but HC accepted that the election had been won and lost, she could have contested the result in court with the evidence of interference, agreed by all US intelligence agencies and sought re counts.

But she accepted the result and supported a smooth transition. The impeachment was not for doing his job, that is where Peter calls you a liar.

The House Intelligence committee decided on the basis of the evidence provided to impeach for "abuse of power and obstruction of congress"

He was impeached but the Senate did not find him guilty in the trial. Neither side did much for democracy by making this partisan, though Romeny showed courage.

Your statement that it was for doing his job, is strong evidence to support Peters argument.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, truck said:

Apologies if I missed it somewhere else but does this statement mean that you believe Trump has lost the election? Or do you still believe he has won it?

If you can find a post where I said he has won it, your question would be valid

Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, roxii said:

I love it. 

You are on a Trump thread and picking and choosing who can and cant ask questions. 

Don would be so proud! 

Jack Dorsey would have been proud of Bored@ last week too...

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, BarryBevan said:

Nothing, but HC accepted that the election had been won and lost, she could have contested the result in court with the evidence of interference, agreed by all US intelligence agencies and sought re counts.

But she accepted the result and supported a smooth transition. The impeachment was not for doing his job, that is where Peter calls you a liar.

The House Intelligence committee decided on the basis of the evidence provided to impeach for "abuse of power and obstruction of congress"

He was impeached but the Senate did not find him guilty in the trial. Neither side did much for democracy by making this partisan, though Romeny showed courage.

Your statement that it was for doing his job, is strong evidence to support Peters argument.

Conducting foreign policy is only an abuse of power in the eyes of power-hungry Democrats and their supporters 

And since the founding fathers intended the three branches of government to be in conflict, obstructing congress is the most absurd 'charge' in the history of the Union

Did Obama obstruct congress when he vetoed the Keystone Pipeline?

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, roxii said:

You will make a good politician one day Jimbo

134 pages and you haven’t answered a question yet. 

You will make a good journalist one day Roxii

Hundreds of answers, and you've managed to overlook all of them

Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, IronJimbo said:

Conducting foreign policy is only an abuse of power in the eyes of power-hungry Democrats and their supporters 

And since the founding fathers intended the three branches of government to be in conflict, obstructing congress is the most absurd 'charge' in the history of the Union

Did Obama obstruct congress when he vetoed the Keystone Pipeline?

"obstructed the inquiry itself by telling his administration officials to ignore subpoenas for documents and testimony."

But you knew this anyway, I sincerely doubt the founding fathers ever envisaged DJT level of conflict. Again Peter doesn't need to provide any evidence for his claims and you prove his point in each post you make.

Take your equivalents:

Obama using his actual power of veto legally vetos a proposal which was damaging to the environment.

Trump uses his position to illegally direct officials to ignore legal subpoenas for documents and testimony.

When he is impeached for doing so, his party not acting the way the founding fathers intended:

"The Founding Fathers did not originally intend for American politics to be partisan. In Federalist Papers No. 9 and No. 10, Alexander Hamilton and James Madison, respectively, wrote specifically about the dangers of domestic political factions."

https://www.history.com/news/founding-fathers-political-parties-opinion

They did not envisage a world where the senate would act on partisan lines and thus an impeachment, while occurring in a political house would not be a political trial.

You are putting up intellectually dishonest positions and flat our deflect, never answer, ignore any fact put up or just make stuff up.

#DJT hacked Transitions

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, BarryBevan said:

"obstructed the inquiry itself by telling his administration officials to ignore subpoenas for documents and testimony."

But you knew this anyway, I sincerely doubt the founding fathers ever envisaged DJT level of conflict. Again Peter doesn't need to provide any evidence for his claims and you prove his point in each post you make.

Take your equivalents:

Obama using his actual power of veto legally vetos a proposal which was damaging to the environment.

Trump uses his position to illegally direct officials to ignore legal subpoenas for documents and testimony.

When he is impeached for doing so, his party not acting the way the founding fathers intended:

"The Founding Fathers did not originally intend for American politics to be partisan. In Federalist Papers No. 9 and No. 10, Alexander Hamilton and James Madison, respectively, wrote specifically about the dangers of domestic political factions."

https://www.history.com/news/founding-fathers-political-parties-opinion

They did not envisage a world where the senate would act on partisan lines and thus an impeachment, while occurring in a political house would not be a political trial.

You are putting up intellectually dishonest positions and flat our deflect, never answer, ignore any fact put up or just make stuff up.

#DJT hacked Transitions

 

 

lol

So much bullshit in one post, its hard to know where to start 

First of all, Trump advised his officials to challenge the subpoenas in court, which they were perfectly entitled to do.  Nothing illegal about it whatsoever 

And its strange how you're only concerned about partisanship when you think it suits your argument (even when it doesn't).  The founders didn't intend for impeachment to be partisan either,  but the house vote was more partisan than the senate's.  I suppose that's 'different?'

Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, IronJimbo said:

lol

So much bullshit in one post, its hard to know where to start 

First of all, Trump advised his officials to challenge the subpoenas in court, which they were perfectly entitled to do.  Nothing illegal about it whatsoever 

And its strange how you're only concerned about partisanship when you think it suits your argument (even when it doesn't).  The founders didn't intend for impeachment to be partisan either,  but the house vote was more partisan than the senate's.  I suppose that's 'different?'

Well Jim, you have essentially driven away more members than Niseko, which is a high standard. We have lost many valuable contributors. I and others keep getting drawn into your silly little games.

Iv'e fallen for it more than most, but I'll leave you to your twisted existence, Bored@ and Roxi, I think for the good of the forum, this thread should be locked.

For my own good and the good of the forum, I'm back on the tri chat only

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, BarryBevan said:

Well Jim, you have essentially driven away more members than Niseko, which is a high standard. We have lost many valuable contributors. I and others keep getting drawn into your silly little games.

Iv'e fallen for it more than most, but I'll leave you to your twisted existence, Bored@ and Roxi, I think for the good of the forum, this thread should be locked.

For my own good and the good of the forum, I'm back on the tri chat only

You are putting up intellectually dishonest positions and flat our deflect, never answer, ignore any fact put up or just make stuff up...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Jim I can tell you that this part is 100% correct 

 

Well Jim, you have essentially driven away more members than Niseko, which is a high standard. We have lost many valuable contributors. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, roxii said:

Jim I can tell you that this part is 100% correct 

 

Well Jim, you have essentially driven away more members than Niseko, which is a high standard. We have lost many valuable contributors. 

If the people you mention are really that upset that someone has dared to express a different opinion, I'd question your use of 'valuable'

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, BarryBevan said:

Well Jim, you have essentially driven away more members than Niseko, which is a high standard. We have lost many valuable contributors. I and others keep getting drawn into your silly little games.

Iv'e fallen for it more than most, but I'll leave you to your twisted existence, Bored@ and Roxi, I think for the good of the forum, this thread should be locked.

For my own good and the good of the forum, I'm back on the tri chat only

Before you shut it down, scroll back through the pages and note some of the claims, counterclaims, and predictions in this thread.
Time exposes who has no f’n idea of US politics. It’s hilarious 😂 
 

Edited by Mike Del
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, IronJimbo said:

If the people you mention are really that upset that someone has dared to express a different opinion, I'd question your use of 'valuable'

Seriously Jim if I knew the damage you would cause to the membership when this started I would have banned you happily to keep the other members on board.
Take out the trump and politics thread and it could be debated if you have any valuable input to the forum at all. 
 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Mike Del said:

Before you shut it down, scroll back through the pages and note some of the claims and counterclaims in this thread.
Time exposes who has no f’n idea of US politics. It’s hilarious 😂 
 

Good idea

He should start with your high hopes from the Muller report

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, roxii said:

Seriously Jim if I knew the damage you would cause to the membership when this started I would have banned you happily to keep the other members on board.
Take out the trump and politics thread and it could be debated if you have any valuable input to the forum at all. 
 

I don't think that's a fair assessment mate.  IJ may not answer some questions directly but look at the pile on he gets on here, why? Because he has a different view to them? That's hardly tolerant is it?

IJ is the only person that doesn't (or extremely rarely) attack the person on here. I don't get his politics, I don't get his reasoning and I don't see how anyone could support Trump but I also don't see that as a reason to hate the guy on here.

Barry is like an alcoholic running a pub and I get that he's been closer to the problem, having lived in the US and then been forced to come home. He just needs to step away.

  However, it's like a never ending nightmare on here, with the constant tit for tat, which would be ok if it wasn't for the fact that that IJ has very few allies in this thread. (Prince and IronmanFoz mainly) but he stays and at least engages.

I agree that this thread and the whole tone of this part of the forum has been depressing and might be the reason that some left. (not me, I left because of Willie and his never ending BS)

 But I don't lay any of that directly at IJ's door.  We are all equally guilty because we an inability to let stuff go and an insatiable appetite 'to be right'. It's like myself and COVID, I'm so close to it here and the production of data, that it's just not worth engaging just to 'prove' something.

That never ends well on the internet.

I've found IJ's contributions on the Zwift thread really valuable last year (a long with others).  If we get back to the core of what this forum is about, then everyone has something to contribute. We just need to remove the thorns from our eyes.

Edited for typos:  I was on a con call, about 'you guessed it' 😉

Edited by FatPom
  • Like 5
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, roxii said:

Seriously Jim if I knew the damage you would cause to the membership when this started I would have banned you happily to keep the other members on board.
Take out the trump and politics thread and it could be debated if you have any valuable input to the forum at all. 
 

Really?

How many precious petals did I scare away with my evil defence of their individual liberties? 

  • Sad 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, FatPom said:

IJ is the only person that doesn't (or extremely rarely) attack the person on here. I don't get his politics, I don't get his reasoning and I don't see how anyone could support Trump but I also don't see that as a reason to hate the guy on here.

My politics are pretty easy to understand, but obviously difficult for some to accept 

Natural rights for all protected by government, as opposed to selective rights granted by government 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, roxii said:

Seriously Jim if I knew the damage you would cause to the membership when this started I would have banned you happily to keep the other members on board.
Take out the trump and politics thread and it could be debated if you have any valuable input to the forum at all. 
 

I have steered well clear of this place and reading this reminded me why. Incessant bullying and personal attacks on a guy simply because his political view isn't aligned with the mob...all allowed to continue unabated because the mods also share the same political bias as the mob. 

Some of you should really step away and have a good think about what you are doing and how you are acting and the example you are setting...particularly for your kids. 

I'm not sure if any of you were ever bullied but this is exactly what you are doing-taking advantage of a situation where you have overwhelming numbers in your favour to unfairly gang up on a single weaker person...disgraceful. 

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, more said:

I have steered well clear of this place and reading this reminded me why. Incessant bullying and personal attacks on a guy simply because his political view isn't aligned with the mob...all allowed to continue unabated because the mods also share the same political bias as the mob. 

Some of you should really step away and have a good think about what you are doing and how you are acting and the example you are setting...particularly for your kids. 

I'm not sure if any of you were ever bullied but this is exactly what you are doing-taking advantage of a situation where you have overwhelming numbers in your favour to unfairly gang up on a single weaker person...disgraceful. 

 

 

Ahem... weaker? 😅

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Admino locked this topic
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...