ADVERTISEMENT

Poor Loser Trump -- loses again

outside shooter said:
During his final year working for the administration, Kushner also opened a new offshore holding company located in the British Virgin Islands, Kushner Companies BVI Limited, which holds several assets, including the Puck Building LP, which is valued at more than $25 million.


thehill.com

Kushner, Ivanka Trump reported up to $640M in outside income during White House years

Former White House advisors Ivanka Trump and Jared Kushner made as much as $640 million during their time in the Trump administration, according to an analysis by a government watchdog group.The Ci…
thehill.com thehill.com
Click to expand...
Thats real sweet of you outside to point Trump out what a joke!

They ALL have offshore accounts....ALL OF THEM

Please see:
Pandora Papers
Paradise Papers
Panama Papers

Theres a lot more where that came from. The rich don't pay taxes folks, well some, but its all ditched. Middle and lower classes pay the majority and that will never change.
 
NOMORENIT said:
Trump was a divisive, unconstitutional, horrible Prez. Scholars across the board have him ranked as the worse or one of the worse US Prez in our Nations history.
Click to expand...
He wasn’t an unconstitutional President, but the rest is correct.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: DANC
Indianaftw said:
WTF DELUSIONAL...All the black dudes that work for me saw right through Obama. They actually loved the fact that TRUMP gave them opportunities to get out of slavery (WELFARE). Wake up DOLT! Remember Dallas Texas!!!!!!!!! People like you are blind as a bat!
Click to expand...
Well since you want to play the race card, all the black people I work with loved Obama. They hate Trump for contributing to an increase in racist behavior and normalizing racist behavior. Then again, they were already successful from the Obama and Bush days and hardly needed Trump to lift them out of welfare.

God you are a walking talking stereotype. Do you ever have an original or well thought out observation? Parroting far right talking points is a bad look.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Zizkov, NOMORENIT and Bulk VanderHuge
indianaftw, 600 Million bucks in one year seems like a lot, and I doubt that "they ALL" do that much grifting
 
BCCHoosier said:
Well since you want to play the race card, all the black people I work with loved Obama. They hate Trump for contributing to an increase in racist behavior and normalizing racist behavior. Then again, they were already successful from the Obama and Bush days and hardly needed Trump to lift them out of welfare.

God guy are a walking talking stereotype. Do you ever have an original or well thought out observation? Parroting far right talking points is a bad look.
Click to expand...
Obama was a BLM supporter and a divider. If you did not see that you are blind. The only black people my colleagues know that give obama props are duped dumbasses like the white boys that hick posts pictures of or gang bangers that know no better. Obama was a socialist white loving prick that f*cked black people up the rear.
 
  • Like
  • Haha
Reactions: Bulk VanderHuge and DANC
Stuffshot said:
www.cnn.com

Judge dismisses Trump lawsuit against Twitter over ban

A federal judge in San Francisco has dismissed former President Donald Trump's lawsuit against Twitter that sought to reinstate his banned account on the platform, according to a court filing.
www.cnn.com www.cnn.com

Of course, Trump never wanted to win this suit -- he just wanted to raise hell and delay things.

He doesn't understand or accept that other people (like judges) have the right to make actual decisions concerning his affairs (unless, of course, they already agree with him).

Save America, Republicans!! Vote for Trump!!

(Rebuttal posts that mention "Liberals, "Democrats," Progressives" etc. are going to look stupid, so go ahead and post them !!)
Click to expand...
TDS is real. Mind boggling the obsession lefties have over Trump.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DANC
Bowlmania said:
I think Hutchinson is going to run. To his credit, he's distancing himself from Trump. Even joined Murkowski in condemning the RNC for censuring Kinzinger and Cheney.
Click to expand...
He will get a whopping 1% in the primary max but sure why not try I guess. But of course you would love anyone who trashes Trump as your Trump hate is one of the most serious cases I haver ever seen. I mean almost in need of therapy type of hate.
 
They di
DANC said:
I don't dispise him. He didn't have time between the election and inauguration day to perform a thorough investigation.

I'm sure the vote count was correct. What I and others are saying is that many of those votes were illegally cast. There couldn't have been time to verify signatures on ballots that came in after 2am and were reported before 6am.

Barr is not superman - investigations take time. He didn't have time.

You conveniently ignore the fact that Barr said he'd vote for Trump if he ran next time.
Click to expand...
They didn’t count all those ballots in two or three hours, they counted them all day. Some states released the count all at once. They often do this with precincts too. This happens in every single election. There is nothing nefarious about it.

Investigations don’t happen without credible evidence that a crime may have been committed. There was no evidence of massive voter fraud then and none now. That includes the 2000 Mules nonsense which was thrown together to bilk you if your money.
 
  • Like
Reactions: NOMORENIT
Aloha Hoosier said:
There was absolutely nothing unusual about the count of the mail-in ballots. This was explained by Republican officials in the states in questioned. Aren't you curious about the fact that a huge number of Republicans would have to be involved in your voter fraud conspiracy? It's so illogical, I just don't get how you guys believe this stuff.

I don't have any liberal talking points. I'm not even close to being a liberal. Stop with that stuff.
Click to expand...
I guess you're not the slightest bit bothered by the fact that signatures were not checked - because as long as Trump lost, you're satisfied.

Some of us are concerned with keeping elections fair. I'm sorry if you just want to shut the door on any discussion but until signatures are verified, there is very much a question of a legitimate election.

You do hit every liberal talking point on the election.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: Bulk VanderHuge
Aloha Hoosier said:
They di

They didn’t count all those ballots in two or three hours, they counted them all day. Some states released the count all at once. They often do this with precincts too. This happens in every single election. There is nothing nefarious about it.

Investigations don’t happen without credible evidence that a crime may have been committed. There was no evidence of massive voter fraud then and none now. That includes the 2000 Mules nonsense which was thrown together to bilk you if your money.
Click to expand...
They quit counting at 2am. If they quit counting, how do they erase a 600,000 vote Trump lead by 6am?
 
  • Haha
Reactions: Bulk VanderHuge
DANC said:
I agree putting Fauci out as the face of the administration policy was bad, but if he hadn't, people would have accused Trump of not having enough experts, etc.

No, he didn't unify us, but what do you expect after 2 1/2 years of the country already being divided anyway by Russia Russia Russia? In my opinion, anything - anything - he would have done would have pissed off half the country

Yeah, he could have slapped on a mask - I think he did eventually - but, again, would it have made any difference? Particularly to the thousands who died from living in a nursing home?

There's no doubt it cost him the election, but I don't think there was anything he could do about it.
Click to expand...
I’m glad you’re recognizing the fact he lost. Understanding reality is a step toward escaping the cult.
 
  • Like
Reactions: iuwclurker and Bulk VanderHuge
outside shooter said:
EgEG6RsXgAEY1NI.jpg
Click to expand...
Fact check before posting. There were six indictments in Trump’s administration, not 215. It’s six too many IMO, but it was six.

www.politifact.com

Many more indictments under 3 GOP vs 3 Dem presidents

RELATED: Read all of PolitiFact’s coverage on Donald Trump indictments A Facebook post claimed that there have been 317
www.politifact.com www.politifact.com
 
Last edited:
Indianaftw said:
Obama was a BLM supporter and a divider. If you did not see that you are blind. The only black people my colleagues know that give obama props are duped dumbasses like the white boys that hick posts pictures of or gang bangers that know no better. Obama was a socialist white loving prick that f*cked black people up the rear.
Click to expand...
Reminder: May is Mental Health Month. Help is available, even for you.
 
DANC said:
Well that's a load of bullshit.

CLINTON CONVICTS LIST (4TH EDITION)

www.gargaro.com
Click to expand...
His list is wrong for Trump (and Reagan too) as I pointed out, but it is about people in each administration who were indicted. It’s correct for Clinton because only two in hid administration were indicted. Your list is right for showing the friend, family and associates that were indicted and many convicted, but only two were in the administration.

I’m no fan of Clinton either and his election was the final straw for me officially switching to the GOP. Another thing I dislike about Trump is that I can no longer call Clinton the biggest liar among the President’s elected in my lifetime.
 
Aloha Hoosier said:
I’m glad you’re recognizing the fact he lost. Understanding reality is a step toward escaping the cult.
Click to expand...
He lost according to the official results. I don't think he lost the vote count, but it's impossible to tell because there were not voter signature verifications on the votes that came in at the last minute.
 
DANC said:
I guess you're not the slightest bit bothered by the fact that signatures were not checked - because as long as Trump lost, you're satisfied.

Some of us are concerned with keeping elections fair. I'm sorry if you just want to shut the door on any discussion but until signatures are verified, there is very much a question of a legitimate election.

You do hit every liberal talking point on the election.
Click to expand...
You say they weren’t checked. I’ve not seen a credible report that they weren’t.

My dislike of Trump is irrelevant. I disliked him as long as I’ve known of him and I still shot down those that claimed his election in 2016 wasn’t legitimate.

I have just as much concern about fair and accurate elections. I support voter ID, I support more secure absentee voting procedures, I don’t support continuing many of the voting changes enacted during COVID, etc. We probably support many of the same voting procedures. I just don’t support the idea that Trump won and lost due to voter fraud. It’s nonsense and didn’t happen. Anyone watching all the polling knew how it was almost certain to turn out and it did.

Again, I don’t do liberal talking points. I’m no liberal. I just follow the facts.
 
  • Like
Reactions: NOMORENIT and outside shooter
Aloha Hoosier said:
You say they weren’t checked. I’ve not seen a credible report that they weren’t.

My dislike of Trump is irrelevant. I disliked him as long as I’ve known of him and I still shot down those that claimed his election in 2016 wasn’t legitimate.

I have just as much concern about fair and accurate elections. I support voter ID, I support more secure absentee voting procedures, I don’t support continuing many of the voting changes enacted during COVID, etc. We probably support many of the same voting procedures. I just don’t support the idea that Trump won and lost due to voter fraud. It’s nonsense and didn’t happen. Anyone watching all the polling knew how it was almost certain to turn out and it did.

Again, I don’t do liberal talking points. I’m no liberal. I just follow the facts.
Click to expand...
You haven't seen one that they are - because they weren't.

You follow what you've been told. You know they didn't verify those signatures in that time frame and you don't care because you got Trump out.

You can say it all you want, but when confronted with legitimate concerns, you blow them off. You're not interested in finding out what actually went on.
 
Aloha Hoosier said:
His list is wrong for Trump (and Reagan too) as I pointed out, but it is about people in each administration who were indicted. It’s correct for Clinton because only two in hid administration were indicted. Your list is right for showing the friend, family and associates that were indicted and many convicted, but only two were in the administration.

I’m no fan of Clinton either and his election was the final straw for me officially switching to the GOP. Another thing I dislike about Trump is that I can no longer call Clinton the biggest liar among the President’s elected in my lifetime.
Click to expand...
You don't count those on his campaign?

CAMPAIGN FINANCE:

33) Michael Brown (Ron Brown's son): money laundering; misdemeanor conviction (Los Angeles Times, "Ron Brown's Son Pleads Guilty to Illegal Donation" August 29, 1997)

34) Eugene Lum: Clinton/Gore campaign contributor and colleague; felony conviction; money laundering (Los Angeles Times, "First Fund-Raising Sentences Meted Out" September 10, 1997)

35) Nora Lum: Clinton/Gore campaign contributor and colleague; felony conviction; money laundering (Los Angeles Times, "First Fund-Raising Sentences Meted Out" September 10, 1997)

36) Johnny Chung: Clinton/Gore campaign contributor and colleague; many visits to Clinton White House and Oval Office with mainland Chinese associates; several illegal campaign contributions, money laundering, tax fraud, and bank fraud guilty pleas (Associated Press: "Democrat Fund-Raiser Pleads Guilty" March 17, 1998)

37) Roger Tamraz: Clinton/Gore campaign contributor and colleague; many visits to Clinton White House and Oval Office; fugitive from Lebanon embezzlement convictions; target of French government financial investigation; BCCI connections (The Wall Street Journal: "Integrity of the Institutions" March 20, 1997, et. al.) CISNEROS:

38) Linda Jones: Henry Cisneros mistress; conspiracy, bank fraud, money laundering, and obstruction of justice federal felony guilty pleas; sentenced to three and one-half years in prison (Associated Press: "Cisneros Ex-Mistress Sentenced" March 25, 1998)

39) Patsy Jo Wooten: Linda Jones sister; one conspiracy guilty plea (Associated Press: "Cisneros Ex-Mistress Sentenced" March 25, 1998)

40) Allen Wooten: Linda Jones brother-in-law; one conspiracy guilty plea (Associated Press: "Cisneros Ex-Mistress Sentenced" March 25, 1998)
 
DANC said:
You haven't seen one that they are - because they weren't.

You follow what you've been told. You know they didn't verify those signatures in that time frame and you don't care because you got Trump out.

You can say it all you want, but when confronted with legitimate concerns, you blow them off. You're not interested in finding out what actually went on.
Click to expand...
Well hell, link something credible. You believe so much that obviously isn’t true, why do you expect me to believe this one?
 
DANC said:
You don't count those on his campaign?

CAMPAIGN FINANCE:

33) Michael Brown (Ron Brown's son): money laundering; misdemeanor conviction (Los Angeles Times, "Ron Brown's Son Pleads Guilty to Illegal Donation" August 29, 1997)

34) Eugene Lum: Clinton/Gore campaign contributor and colleague; felony conviction; money laundering (Los Angeles Times, "First Fund-Raising Sentences Meted Out" September 10, 1997)

35) Nora Lum: Clinton/Gore campaign contributor and colleague; felony conviction; money laundering (Los Angeles Times, "First Fund-Raising Sentences Meted Out" September 10, 1997)

36) Johnny Chung: Clinton/Gore campaign contributor and colleague; many visits to Clinton White House and Oval Office with mainland Chinese associates; several illegal campaign contributions, money laundering, tax fraud, and bank fraud guilty pleas (Associated Press: "Democrat Fund-Raiser Pleads Guilty" March 17, 1998)

37) Roger Tamraz: Clinton/Gore campaign contributor and colleague; many visits to Clinton White House and Oval Office; fugitive from Lebanon embezzlement convictions; target of French government financial investigation; BCCI connections (The Wall Street Journal: "Integrity of the Institutions" March 20, 1997, et. al.) CISNEROS:

38) Linda Jones: Henry Cisneros mistress; conspiracy, bank fraud, money laundering, and obstruction of justice federal felony guilty pleas; sentenced to three and one-half years in prison (Associated Press: "Cisneros Ex-Mistress Sentenced" March 25, 1998)

39) Patsy Jo Wooten: Linda Jones sister; one conspiracy guilty plea (Associated Press: "Cisneros Ex-Mistress Sentenced" March 25, 1998)

40) Allen Wooten: Linda Jones brother-in-law; one conspiracy guilty plea (Associated Press: "Cisneros Ex-Mistress Sentenced" March 25, 1998)
Click to expand...
You expecting me to defend Clinton? I think he was dishonest and crooked, but no, those crooks weren’t in the administration. Again, facts. Stick with them.
 
DANC said:
You don't count those on his campaign?

CAMPAIGN FINANCE:

33) Michael Brown (Ron Brown's son): money laundering; misdemeanor conviction (Los Angeles Times, "Ron Brown's Son Pleads Guilty to Illegal Donation" August 29, 1997)

34) Eugene Lum: Clinton/Gore campaign contributor and colleague; felony conviction; money laundering (Los Angeles Times, "First Fund-Raising Sentences Meted Out" September 10, 1997)

35) Nora Lum: Clinton/Gore campaign contributor and colleague; felony conviction; money laundering (Los Angeles Times, "First Fund-Raising Sentences Meted Out" September 10, 1997)

36) Johnny Chung: Clinton/Gore campaign contributor and colleague; many visits to Clinton White House and Oval Office with mainland Chinese associates; several illegal campaign contributions, money laundering, tax fraud, and bank fraud guilty pleas (Associated Press: "Democrat Fund-Raiser Pleads Guilty" March 17, 1998)

37) Roger Tamraz: Clinton/Gore campaign contributor and colleague; many visits to Clinton White House and Oval Office; fugitive from Lebanon embezzlement convictions; target of French government financial investigation; BCCI connections (The Wall Street Journal: "Integrity of the Institutions" March 20, 1997, et. al.) CISNEROS:

38) Linda Jones: Henry Cisneros mistress; conspiracy, bank fraud, money laundering, and obstruction of justice federal felony guilty pleas; sentenced to three and one-half years in prison (Associated Press: "Cisneros Ex-Mistress Sentenced" March 25, 1998)

39) Patsy Jo Wooten: Linda Jones sister; one conspiracy guilty plea (Associated Press: "Cisneros Ex-Mistress Sentenced" March 25, 1998)

40) Allen Wooten: Linda Jones brother-in-law; one conspiracy guilty plea (Associated Press: "Cisneros Ex-Mistress Sentenced" March 25, 1998)
Click to expand...

If you count them then we can count all of the Russians in Trump's campaign.
 
Aloha Hoosier said:
Well hell, link something credible. You believe so much that obviously isn’t true, why do you expect me to believe this one?
Click to expand...
You wouldn't believe it if I did post something. It would be the source or whatever - you'd find a reason to not believe it.

I'm not wasting my time looking it up for you. If you think I'm wrong, prove it. If signatures were checked, you should find thousands of pages of proof on the google machine.
 
  • Like
Reactions: NOMORENIT
Aloha Hoosier said:
You expecting me to defend Clinton? I think he was dishonest and crooked, but no, those crooks weren’t in the administration. Again, facts. Stick with them.
Click to expand...
This isn't about you. It's about the bullshit graph that was posted.
 
DANC said:
You wouldn't believe it if I did post something. It would be the source or whatever - you'd find a reason to not believe it.

I'm not wasting my time looking it up for you. If you think I'm wrong, prove it. If signatures were checked, you should find thousands of pages of proof on the google machine.
Click to expand...
I believe credible sources. I’d like to see what specifically convinced you of this because I’ve not seen anything about it. Those that make a claim are supposed to link support for it.
 
Aloha Hoosier said:
Did you not notice that I also posted that it was false?
Click to expand...
Yes, but you also said the Clinton numbers were correct. They weren't. You claim those weren't all in his administration, but they were in his campaign, so they were part of the Clinton administration.

So, if you want to compare people in Trump's administration and campaign with Clinton, have at it. I don't believe the graph because there are no names or source given. I sure as hell don't believe anthing Outside Shitter posts with some sourced confirmation.
 
Aloha Hoosier said:
I believe credible sources. I’d like to see what specifically convinced you of this because I’ve not seen anything about it. Those that make a claim are supposed to link support for it.
Click to expand...
I haven't seen anything specific - that's the problem. And I can't find anything.

If you can, I'd love to see it. It may change my thinking on it.
 
DANC said:
Yes, but you also said the Clinton numbers were correct. They weren't. You claim those weren't all in his administration, but they were in his campaign, so they were part of the Clinton administration.

So, if you want to compare people in Trump's administration and campaign with Clinton, have at it. I don't believe the graph because there are no names or source given. I sure as hell don't believe anthing Outside Shitter posts with some sourced confirmation.
Click to expand...
No, the Clinton numbers were correct. The graph was about those in each administration that were indicted. Only two in Clinton’s administration were indicted. Campaigns don’t count. Your list includes Clinton cronies, family, friends and associates outside the administration that were indicted. Yes, there were many, but they weren’t in the administration.

The Washington Post was the source of his inaccurate graph, I believe, and he definitely should have sourced it. Why aren’t you focusing on the fact that they falsely claimed 215 in Trump’s administration were indicted when the number is actually just six? Why attempt a whatabout when the number for Trump was wildly wrong? That should be your attack. I’m helping you out here.
 
Aloha Hoosier said:
First paragraph is simple. In many states, mostly Republican ones, they weren’t allowed to count the mail in / absentee ballots until Election Day. Since Trump and his cronies were baselessly bad mouthing voting by mail for months it was inevitable that they’d be overwhelmingly for Biden. Anyone paying attention would know that if Trump’s in person lead was going to diminish or disappear after the mail in ballots were counted. Trump’s team knew this too and used it to dupe his Trumpsters into believing something nefarious happened when what was expected to happen happened. This is another Trump failure as well. Until this election the Republican candidates usually won the absentee and mail in voting. You can thank him for screwing that up too.

Second paragraph is simple as well - see my first paragraph. I expected what happened to happen too. It was obvious to all except the true believers desperate to believe Trump’s big lie.

Third paragraph - I was paying close attention. You bought into the Trump team’s dishonest messaging about the investigation and the results. You’ve also decided not to believe what a Republican led Senate committee said about it because that also doesn’t support what you desperately want to believe about your cult leader.

Fourth paragraph - sorry, but Flynn doesn’t deserve any defense. Peter Stjork and his girlfriend don’t either, but their texts were ultimately used as distractions by Trumpsters when in reality they were hardly relevant at all.

Paragraph five - accusing rank and file FBI agents and other government officials of being hyper-partisan an unable to do their jobs objectively it’s no different than accusing those serving in the military of the same. In fact, Trumpsters do that whenever any military officer, current or former, says anything at all that is perceived as unsupportive of Trump himself even when it’s not necessarily about Trump. If Trump says he doesn’t like them or whatever they say, Trumpsters loyally pile on too. That’s disgusting cult behavior.

If the Durham investigation finds any illegal or unethical behavior by anyone I’ll note it as I always do. However, it’s not possible for it to vindicate Trump and Trumpsters are going to be sorely disappointed that it won’t.
Click to expand...
Trump's election response was easily predicted months before the election. I'm being literal, it was literally predicted.

He was going to go after mail in voting.

Why, because he knew that a majority of Dems were going to vote by mail due to the pandemic.

It's why swing states like Pennsylvania tried to change their counting laws that says they have to wait until election day to open ballots, knowing that with the increase in mail voting volume it was going to take much longer to finalize the count....and that's all Trump needed to sow doubt.

Which is why the republicans wouldn't let them change it. It was part of their strategy.

As a reverse example, Texas counts it mail in votes as they come in (or maybe it's first, can't remember exactly and too lazy to Google it).

Because of that Biden had a big lead early in the evening in Texas.

By the end of the night, the polling votes were added and Trump 'came back' and won.

Wait a second....Trump stole Texas because I went to bed really early that night and when I did Biden was leading but when I woke up Trump miraculously and obviously illegally overtook Biden's lead!!!!

That's the level of this argument.
 
  • Like
  • Haha
Reactions: NOMORENIT, DANC, zeke4ahs and 2 others
expanding the circle from just administration to campaign officials doesn't really help DJT in the tally of criminals in his personal DC sewer

Off the top of my head...

campaign chairman Paul Manafort
Manafort's Deputy Rick Gates
campaign chief Steve Bannon
campaign advisor Roger Stone
campaign (& personal) lawyer Michael Cohen
campaign foreign affairs advisor George Papadopoulos
Inaugural committee chair Tom Barrack

All were either convicted and sentenced or pardoned by the head grifter

Yes, the earlier graphic was false. The number listed was the count of separate CHARGES. That number is not counting people. For example, Paul Manafort was indicted on 48 separate charges, faced 25 charges, was convicted was found guility on 8, plead guilty on 2 others, so one grifter committed at least 10 crimes, but indeed it was not 10 grifters.

Here's a politifact analysis
www.politifact.com

Many more indictments under 3 GOP vs 3 Dem presidents

RELATED: Read all of PolitiFact’s coverage on Donald Trump indictments A Facebook post claimed that there have been 317
www.politifact.com www.politifact.com
 
  • Like
  • Haha
Reactions: NOMORENIT, DANC and anon_mya1phvcpf5x4
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

S

For those who asked about what Trump did.

Replies
125
Views
9K
The Water Cooler
jet812
J
VanPastorMan

Trump's Accomplishments Break Down By Year.

Replies
164
Views
13K
The Water Cooler
cosmickid
C
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT
Top Bottom
Back