Trump and the anthem

Ellen, you are delusional. Franken was clearly doing hoverhand, his hand being many inches away and not touching her at all. Trump is on tape admitting to the things he's accused of. But, then, I don;t know what to expect from a conservatard. Precious snowflakes who close their ears to the world and scream "la la la" when confronted with things that break their delusions.

Yes, it just imply's guilt. Not that you were found guilty in a court of law. But in OJ's book - he uses the word -I.
So the inference is that he is guilty. Originally Posted by Austin Ellen

I, too, think OJ was guilty but, again, you can not infer guilt from what is written in a book, whether the word "I" is used or not. Again, using the Mona Lisa theft as an example, if I said "I would turn off the alarms by . . . " or "I would incapacitate the guards by . . ." is simply the best way to describe how I would commit the crime.

President Trump is Mueller’s "primary target", and Flynn coordination is a scandal, legal expert says.
http://www.newsweek.com/trump-target...r-flynn-721443

The separation of Flynn and Trump's legal team this week is really telling. We knew this was coming back in March when his request for immunity was rejected.
Flynn's going down and he's being used to take down others. Delicious.

I, too, think OJ was guilty but, again, you can not infer guilt from what is written in a book, whether the word "I" is used or not. Again, using the Mona Lisa theft as an example, if I said "I would turn off the alarms by . . . " or "I would incapacitate the guards by . . ." is simply the best way to describe how I would commit the crime. Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

I've given up on getting her to see logic. She is more convinced that what she called a hypothetical is an admission of guilt because he took money for it. But she then refuses to believe that paying out money is an admission of guilt because that person is the head of the company. Never mind we are suppose to believe that Trump is a great/hands on businessman in one breathe and then in the other we are suppose to believe that he had no idea what was going on in his company.. They live in an alternative reality and it's tough to understand the backwards way of thinking.

Oh please Trump people tell me, how will y'all explain this?

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/...n-americans%2F

I mean people in my community have always thought MAGA was a dog whistle for Jim Crow days but I guess Trump is letting us know it's true. He actually responded to that article with MAGA?

Oh please Trump people tell me, how will y'all explain this?

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/...n-americans%2F

I mean people in my community have always thought MAGA was a dog whistle for Jim Crow days but I guess Trump is letting us know it's true. He actually responded to that article with MAGA? Originally Posted by Austin Dude

What community is that?

President Trump is Mueller’s "primary target", and Flynn coordination is a scandal, legal expert says.
http://www.newsweek.com/trump-target...r-flynn-721443

The separation of Flynn and Trump's legal team this week is really telling. We knew this was coming back in March when his request for immunity was rejected.
Flynn's going down and he's being used to take down others. Delicious. Originally Posted by Observing

You get your news from newsweek?

Let me get this straight. Let's say you own a real estate business. You have over a million properties. Apt complexes. You have a President,VP, Regional supervisors, supervisors and office staff on site. So about 200,000 employees nation wide. One of them is a leasing g agent who does not like Jewish folks. So he tells them that there are no vacancies to rent. But another couple comes in and is not Jewish and he rents to them. The Jewish couple sue the rental company for rental discrimination based on religion. The court find discrimination did occur and hold the leasing agent and the company liable. The leasing agent pays out - yes,he is guilty as charged as his payment is a declaration of his guilt. The owner is held responsible also. However,he has to pay out as a direct consequence of the actions of his employee. He doesn't know this leasing agent and although, the owner had rental guidelines in place, the agent was still able to discriminate. In fact, the owner has Jewish relatives and abhors discrimination against anyone. So you are telling me that this owner would be guilty just based on the fact that he has to do a payout settlement. See in the real world, innocent people can be held liable. In the snowflake world everybody is guilty.

I've given up on getting her to see logic. She is more convinced that what she called a hypothetical is an admission of guilt because he took money for it. But she then refuses to believe that paying out money is an admission of guilt because that person is the head of the company. Never mind we are suppose to believe that Trump is a great/hands on businessman in one breathe and then in the other we are suppose to believe that he had no idea what was going on in his company.. They live in an alternative reality and it's tough to understand the backwards way of thinking. Originally Posted by Austin Dude

Let me get this straight. Let's say you own a real estate business. You have over a million properties. Apt complexes. You have a President,VP, Regional supervisors, supervisors and office staff on site. So about 200,000 employees nation wide. One of them is a leasing g agent who does not like Jewish folks. So he tells them that there are no vacancies to rent. But another couple comes in and is not Jewish and he rents to them. The Jewish couple sue the rental company for rental discrimination based on religion. The court find discrimination did occur and hold the leasing agent and the company liable. The leasing agent pays out - yes,he is guilty as charged as his payment is a declaration of his guilt. The owner is held responsible also. However,he has to pay out as a direct consequence of the actions of his employee. He doesn't know this leasing agent and although, the owner had rental guidelines in place, the agent was still able to discriminate. In fact, the owner has Jewish relatives and abhors discrimination against anyone. So you are telling me that this owner would be guilty just based on the fact that he has to do a payout settlement. See in the real world, innocent people can be held liable. In the snowflake world everybody is guilty. Originally Posted by Austin Ellen

There are many flaws with your hypothetical situation.

1) Trump doesn't have a million properties now and have less back then.
2) It wasn't nationwide, it was in two NYC boroughs.
3) Your hypothetical omits that Trump had a history of discrimination practices.

But even with all of that, your hypothetical doesn't work in defending Trump. You see... unlike you're proposed situation, Trump pushed the policy not renting to African Americans. It was what he wanted. That means he isn't this innocent owner caught in the mess created by someone working for him. He is the guilty party who had people following his policy. But hey. Nice try. And the nerve of an elderly white person telling a black man that innocent people can be held liable is fucking hilarious and tone deaf as fuck.

But since we are talking about the guilt of discrimination... What do you have to say about Trump replying to a tweet about him fighting with African Americans to gin up his base with culture wars and to enforce a sense that the system is rigged for minorities with MAGA? How can you defend that one?

In my scenario, I didn't mention Trump. I just said owner. It could be anyone in the US. Actually, this is based on an actual event. Of course, the numbers were changed around and I did not mention any names. My point is to show you that innocent people sometimes have to pay.

On MAGA? I don't see a problem. He has free speech rights just like everyone else. You need to prepare yourself to be offended, Trump is not politically correct. He said it right from the start.
And that ain't gonna change.

There are many flaws with your hypothetical situation.

1) Trump doesn't have a million properties now and have less back then.
2) It wasn't nationwide, it was in two NYC boroughs.
3) Your hypothetical omits that Trump had a history of discrimination practices.

But even with all of that, your hypothetical doesn't work in defending Trump. You see... unlike you're proposed situation, Trump pushed the policy not renting to African Americans. It was what he wanted. That means he isn't this innocent owner caught in the mess created by someone working for him. He is the guilty party who had people following his policy. But hey. Nice try. And the nerve of an elderly white person telling a black man that innocent people can be held liable is fucking hilarious and tone deaf as fuck.

But since we are talking about the guilt of discrimination... What do you have to say about Trump replying to a tweet about him fighting with African Americans to gin up his base with culture wars and to enforce a sense that the system is rigged for minorities with MAGA? How can you defend that one? Originally Posted by Austin Dude

You get your news from newsweek? Originally Posted by centexguy

More like newsWEAK. Which means pretty lame. Like obie and millsy.

Should probably be reporting on more important things. Like 'Piegate'...

http://dailycaller.com/2017/11/24/cn...faked-her-pie/

Now, there's a scandal for ya!

You get your news from newsweek? Originally Posted by centexguy

Time says Trump is 'incorrect' after president says he rejected Person of the Year overture.
https://www.politico.com/story/2017/...he-year-259614


Ex-Time editor trolls Trump: You still have your fake Time cover in storage.
http://thehill.com/homenews/administ...-time-cover-in

Mueller might be the one who’s ‘draining the swamp’.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world...=.f93084590e0f

Bombshell report reveals new details about Trump's Oval Office meeting with Russians after he fired Comey.
http://www.businessinsider.com/bombs...-comey-2017-11

Meanwhile Trump tweets again about these scumbags taking a knee. Liberals and never Trumpers say he's got bigger fish to fry. I say the culture in this country is important. I bet you liberals are all on Lavar Ball's side as well.

Meanwhile Trump tweets again about these scumbags taking a knee. Liberals and never Trumpers say he's got bigger fish to fry. I say the culture in this country is important. I bet you liberals are all on Lavar Ball's side as well. Originally Posted by derek303

I commented on LaVar Ball on the ECCIE national political forum. The man is a low-life in my opinion. If you followed his comments while his son Lonzo was at UCLA last year, you would understand my comment. He has tried to capitalize on his sons' (Lonzo, LiAngelo, and LaMelo) basketball abilities by creating Big Baller Brand sports equipment and introducing $495 basketball shoes. Now that Lonzo is on the LA Lakers, he is criticizing the coaches there for not using his son correctly.

So why should Trump waste his time getting into a battle of words with this guy? In my opinion, he shouldn't waste his time.

If Trump wants to continue his tweets against the NFL players who continue their protests, it is certainly his right. In my opinion his tweets have done nothing to help his image with those other than his already firm supporters.

In my scenario, I didn't mention Trump. I just said owner. It could be anyone in the US. Actually, this is based on an actual event. Of course, the numbers were changed around and I did not mention any names. My point is to show you that innocent people sometimes have to pay.

On MAGA? I don't see a problem. He has free speech rights just like everyone else. You need to prepare yourself to be offended, Trump is not politically correct. He said it right from the start.
And that ain't gonna change. Originally Posted by Austin Ellen

As I said at the end of my comment, I know all about innocent people paying. I've seen innocent people like me killed or imprisoned. I don't need to have some hypothetical to know that. My point is that Trump wasn't innocent in his discrimination case. He was guilty.

Wait so you see no problem with Trump, a man who is routinely said to be: racist, dog whistling to white supremacists, dividing the country, and not supportive of minorities. You're ok with him replying to a tweet about an article in which it says he is trying to divide our country base on race with his slogan #MAGA? So you are saying African Americans must be ok with the president offending them by saying yes I'm here to tell people that y'all are the enemy? That his idea of a great America, where white people think the system is against them and for us (which is the most idiotic idea in the world). That we should just chalk it up to our president being who he said he would be? Wow. I guess you Trump people will defend anything he says, it's truly like a cult. That was a softball. He was totally wrong to do that. I thought your defense would be maybe he didn't read the article. Nope you went with that's his prerogative. Yes he has a first amendment right, he also has a duty to represent and fight for the rights of all Americans. That reply doesn't show a guy looking to fulfill that duty. Sorry you are too in love with a symbol that you can't see how bad tweet is for people who don't look like you.