jeffblue101
New member
No, I didn't read your article, too many giant red words.
glad your amused by your own misconception of a Trump voterBut I did get a chuckle out of your own words, that's why I quoted them.
No, I didn't read your article, too many giant red words.
glad your amused by your own misconception of a Trump voterBut I did get a chuckle out of your own words, that's why I quoted them.
glad your amused by your own misconception of a Trump voter
... I'm pretty sure I don't have a misconception of them.
were you going for smug?
were you going for smug?
'cause you were pretty smug when you posted the "melania shows signs of being abused at the inauguration" crap
remember how that turned out? :chuckle:
But now we find out that Obama operated like the KGB while authorizing wire taps on Donald Trump during a campaign where he openly supported Clinton and campaigned on her behalf - amazing corruption by demoncrats
'cause you were pretty smug when you posted the "melania shows signs of being abused at the inauguration" crap
remember how that turned out? :chuckle:
http://theologyonline.com/showthrea...n-of-a-fraud&p=4915662&viewfull=1#post4915662
Nothing to see there, move on. :yawn:Time will tell.
It's only a lie if he talked about the election, in fact this narrow phrasing "about the 2016 election" disproves that the democrats wanted a broad answer for any contact as a senator.
Why do you have quotation marks around something I didn't say? Not cool.
it's called a paraphrase
english
get some
You don't put quotation marks around a paraphrase.
I already said what I thought in that thread and you can reread it there....
bananahead said:...I haven't changed my mind.
Granted, but see my point #3. He couldn't possibly have been meeting with the ambassador at the RNC in his capacity as a senator. What else could it possibly have been about?
That looks more like meeting with Medvedev than meeting with Kislyak. And it was seven years ago.
right - you thought that out of context video clip was evidence of trump's dominance of melania
when it was shown, clearly, that you were wrong, that she was responding to her fidgeting ten year old son, you ignored it and....
not unexpected, not the way you've been lately
the old anna would never have ignored her flawed analysis :nono:
Not the topic of this thread. Last I'll say on it here.
Granted, you would have to prove that that wasn't true. But what do you think they talked about at the RNC convention? The weather? He couldn't have been performing senatorial duties.
No, we know that Trump is claiming it. It's certainly not true. The President simply doesn't have that power.
Obama was not directing an investigation into Trump...all by himself. This stuff is lead by non-political civil servants. If a wiretap was issued, it could only have been with the approval of a court, such as the FISA court, which would suggest that investigators had probable cause. The President cannot simply order a wiretap. And if that is true, then it suggests that there is actual evidence of wrongdoing by Trump, which could be very bad for him. So he should watch his wild claims.
Of course, the most obvious explanation, since this was a Tweet, is that he was just lying like usual, and there's nothing to it.
His RNC contact was not a private meeting but brief congratulations for his speech. Numerous media sources on the left and right have reported on this already.