U.S President: Donald Trump

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by Mick

That's not a controversial fact. If you still do not believe it, go search for it, the time it has taken you to keep pestering me to do so, you could have done a google search by now.

I will not say this again. I suggest you do a search on it, because I am not because I believe it to be accurate.

I appreciate that you may think it's beneath you to bother with sources. Believe me, it doesn't help your arguments. I appreciate that snowflakes may feel that asking for evidence to support weak statements is pestering; bless; but no one's asking you to swim the channel!

---------- Post added at 22:59 ---------- Previous post was at 22:46 ----------

Originally Posted by Damien

This is the President of the United States: https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/...89999045693441

lol, he and his followers make Alan Partridge look balanced and secure in themselves!

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

I appreciate that you may think it's beneath you to bother with sources. Believe me, it doesn't help your arguments. I appreciate that snowflakes may feel that asking for evidence to support weak statements is pestering; bless; but no one's asking you to swim the channel!

---------- Post added at 22:59 ---------- Previous post was at 22:46 ----------


lol, he and his followers make Alan Partridge look balanced and secure in themselves!

You’re priceless, you’ve gone from my factual comment being a controversial statement to a weak statement. Which it is neither and it’s nothing to do with being above or beneath anything, as I have told you, I refuse to respond to your obsession and pathetic ‘demands’ for evidence, it’s out there, go look for it!

[TheDaddy]

Originally Posted by Damien

This is the President of the United States: https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/...89999045693441

This is the president to, he had fake man of the year covers hanging in his golf clubs!!! He really is a very special individual


http://thehill.com/homenews/administ...-time-cover-in

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by Mick

You’re priceless, you’ve gone from my factual comment being a controversial statement to a weak statement. Which it is neither and it’s nothing to do with being above or beneath anything, as I have told you, I refuse to respond to your obsession and pathetic ‘demands’ for evidence, it’s out there, go look for it!

Never mind that everyone else makes an effort to support their statements with links so we can continue the debate. Somehow you feel it's up to everyone else to do your homework for you.
Sorry, you're not Donald Trump and to borrow a metaphor, you'll have to learn to tie your own shoelaces, I won't tie them for you.

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

Never mind that everyone else makes an effort to support their statements with links so we can continue the debate. Somehow you feel it's up to everyone else to do your homework for you.
Sorry, you're not Donald Trump and to borrow a metaphor, you'll have to learn to tie your own shoelaces, I won't tie them for you.

No they do not. Stop BS me.

You need to stop going on and on about this. I believe the statement is accurate. You are the one who does not, first calling it controversial then weak. If you have difficulty believing the information, then go look it up, the onus is on YOU!

Now stop going on about it, stop making silly remarks because I refuse to bow to your demands. Enough is enough. What you are doing is bordering on harassment and I will take this further if I have to.

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by Mick

No they do not. Stop BS me.

You need to stop going on and on about this. I believe the statement is accurate. You are the one who does not, first calling it controversial then weak. If you have difficulty believing the information, then go look it up, the onus is on YOU!

Now stop going on about it, stop making silly remarks because I refuse to bow to your demands. Enough is enough. What you are doing is bordering on harassment and I will take this further if I have to.

My apologies for any stress I have caused in pursuing my argument about the need for evidence, let's agree to disagree on this point and move on.

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

My apologies for any stress I have caused in pursuing my argument about the need for evidence, let's agree to disagree on this point and move on.

Wise move. At the end of the day, you’re behaving in a way, as if I’m on trial with your obsession with evidence. Clue: I’m not.

Originally Posted by Damien

Unless I am missing something the Maryland Judge was appointed by Obama:

https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-...el-ban-attempt



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodore_D._Chuang

But I don't like the idea of turning the justice system into a Democrat vs Republican thing. This is why judges have tenure and lifetime appointments, to be free of political pressure, and it works. There needs to be a system that both sides agree on otherwise the whole thing falls down.

Your NPR link was from October, from the previous round of legal wrangling.

I was basing my assertion on the original link, which stated

Meanwhile, in Baltimore on Tuesday, US District Judge Marvin Garbis delivered another blow to the Trump administration by blocking its ban on transgender people serving in the military.

http://www.mdd.uscourts.gov/marvin-j...district-judge

In July 1989, Judge Garbis received notification that he had been nominated by President Bush for appointment to a vacant seat on the United States District Court for the District of Maryland. This appointment was confirmed by the Senate on October 25, 1989, and finalized on December 8, 1989, when he was commissioned.

Most of the other media outlets are stating it was Judge Marvin Garbis who runs led on the trans-gender ban.

https://www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc-...litary-n823226

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local...cbe_story.html

https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-us...-idUKKBN1DM059

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/21/u...-military.html

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...n-by-u-s-judge

http://edition.cnn.com/2017/11/21/po...der/index.html

Originally Posted by Hugh

Your NPR link was from October, from the previous round of legal wrangling.

I was basing my assertion on the original link, which stated

http://www.mdd.uscourts.gov/marvin-j...district-judge

Most of the other media outlets are stating it was Judge Marvin Garbis who runs led on the trans-gender ban.

https://www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc-...litary-n823226

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local...cbe_story.html

https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-us...-idUKKBN1DM059

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/21/u...-military.html

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...n-by-u-s-judge

http://edition.cnn.com/2017/11/21/po...der/index.html

Ahh! I did suspect I was missing something. Apologies!

@RealDonaldJTrump

We should have a contest as to which of the Networks, plus CNN and
not including Fox, is the most dishonest, corrupt and/or distorted in its political
coverage of your favorite President (me). They are all bad. Winner to receive
the FAKE NEWS TROPHY!

2:04 PM - 27 Nov 2017

It's the "(me)" that just sums it up....

He wasn’t even the favourite choice for President in the election he won.

Originally Posted by Damien

He wasn’t even the favourite choice for President in the election he won.

He was, according to the more States he won, that’s how the Presidency is decided, not by the heavy population numbers on either side of the Country.

Originally Posted by Mick

He was, according to the more States he won, that’s how the Presidency is decided, not by the heavy population numbers on either side of the Country.

I was taking about the people

Originally Posted by Damien

I was taking about the people

Yes, I know.

Thankfully, the Presidency is not decided by total voter tally, otherwise it would just be the typically left leaning liberal population in New York and California deciding elections and we can’t have that and forget about all the conservative people living in the middle.

We could certainly open up the debate about the actual vote tally, how many illegal votes were cast for her, people voting twice by crossing State lines and voting in both States and also how many illegal immigrants would have voted for her, given Trumps stance on stricter border controls.

At the end of the day, we could argue till the cows come home, it does not matter one iota. He is the 45th President, she is not (thankfully).

Either way, I don’t get the need to pick apart nearly every tweet of his, this is who this President is. Perhaps congress might come up with a 28th Amendment banning all Government employees up to and including the President from posting on Twitter. But then that may actually breach the first Amendment, which prohibits further laws against free speech.

Originally Posted by Mick

We could certainly open up the debate about the actual vote tally, how many illegal votes were cast for her, people voting twice by crossing State lines and voting in both States and also how many illegal immigrants would have voted for her, given Trumps stance on stricter border controls.

But there is no evidence at all that any voter fraud comes anywhere close the amount it would take for Trump to have won the popular vote. It’s only been made a debate to try and make an unknown who won the popular vote. It’s not unknown, it was Clinton.

At the end of the day, we could argue till the cows come home, it does not matter one iota. He is the 45th President, she is not (thankfully).

Yup, I am not contesting the fact he won the election.

Either way, I don’t get the need to pick apart nearly every tweet of his, this is who this President is. Perhaps congress might come up with a 28th Amendment banning all Government employees up to and including the President from posting on Twitter. But then that may actually breach the first Amendment, which prohibits further laws against free speech.

We look at his tweets because he is the President and the most powerful man in the world. I don’t think we should ban it but we can still mock him for it.