A Book about the Anti-Trump Conspiracy

Message 28 of 277 (836673) 07-21-2018 7:19 AM

Reply to: Message 21 by Faith 07-20-2018 10:17 PM

quote:

---

We are great. We are free. We are wonderful. We are the most wonderful people in all the jungle! We all say so, and so it must be true.

---

We do recognize that there are lots who see things as you do and we have considered that there might be something to it but the overwhelming conclusion is that it is just the chatter of the Bandar-Log.

Message 45 of 277 (836708) 07-21-2018 12:12 PM

Reply to: Message 43 by Thugpreacha 07-21-2018 11:51 AM

That is NOT evidence of any conspiracy.

Faith has not provided any evidence to support any position beyond the fact that the book exists.

Message 74 of 277 (836746) 07-21-2018 6:37 PM

Reply to: Message 60 by Faith 07-21-2018 6:05 PM

If that were true you might be able to actually produce some evidence.

Please present the evidence that is everywhere and not just in conspiracy nutjob books.

Message 87 of 277 (836774) 07-22-2018 7:12 AM

Reply to: Message 85 by Faith 07-22-2018 7:01 AM

Yet you present no evidence to support your position while there is overwhelming evidence that Trump really is simply a boor.

Message 88 of 277 (836776) 07-22-2018 8:01 AM

Reply to: Message 83 by Faith 07-22-2018 6:33 AM

No Faith, that once again is simply another of your incorrect assertions.

Focusing on the book by demanding evidence for the assertions made in the book is what separates the civilized from the barbarian, the wise from the ignorant, the sane from the delusional, the truth from the fiction, reality from fantasy and the facts from the cultist dogma.

Message 95 of 277 (836793) 07-22-2018 3:36 PM

Reply to: Message 94 by Faith 07-22-2018 3:32 PM

Real observation and good judgement are supported by real evidence and good facts.

Please present the evidence that supports the assertion that there is an anti-Trump Conspiracy.

Message 109 of 277 (836813) 07-22-2018 6:37 PM

Reply to: Message 106 by Faith 07-22-2018 6:08 PM

Specifically, what is the evidence to support the assertion that "If the first family had a dog, they would probably call it a Russian bot."

Message 119 of 277 (836838) 07-23-2018 8:05 AM

Reply to: Message 118 by Faith 07-23-2018 1:29 AM

The family and staff being accosted by the public are the direct result of the Presidents behavior and in particular his constant public comments that are either provocative, vile, racist, or down right lies. Such accosting (is there such a word) is not just acceptable but rather the duty of all US citizens. Even the President is not above the law and certainly should not be above common decent social behavior and Trump is simply unfit to be in polite company.

Asking the press secretary to leave the restaurant may well be understandable but is definitely NOT acceptable behavior and may have been illegal.

No. I do not see any signs on animosity against Trump but there definitely is, as there should be, responses to his behavior and posts. That is as it should be. The President of the US should be responsible for his behavior.

No, I most definitely do not agree that the " press has a basic obligation to serve the public peace" and in fact the very idea that the press has a basic obligation to serve the public peace is destructive and entirely foreign to any concept of Democracy. The press has a basic obligation to serve the public; PERIOD. If that means reporting things that disturb the general peace then that is what should be reported.

Edited by jar, : fix sub-title

Message 144 of 277 (836999) 07-25-2018 12:51 PM

Reply to: Message 141 by Thugpreacha 07-25-2018 10:28 AM

Wouldn't the way to do that be by providing actual evidence of an anti-Trump conspiracy?

Message 153 of 277 (837034) 07-25-2018 5:44 PM

Reply to: Message 148 by Taq 07-25-2018 5:28 PM

While most US Presidents seem to have avoided direct nepotism a significant number have not.

Remember Bobby Kennedy and Sargent Shriver?

According to an article in Constitution Daily on the subject:

quote:

---

Back in 1797, incoming President John Adams retained his son, John Quincy Adams, as a diplomat and appointed him as the United States minister to Prussia, over public criticism.

More vexing was William Stephens Smith, the President’s son-in-law, whom Adams nominated for several government positions. Smith had been involved in land speculation schemes, but President Adams was eventually able to appoint Smith as a customs agent in New York. In 1806, Smith was implicated in a scandal to invade Venezuela with 200 men. Adams also appointed his brother-in-law as a postmaster and named his son John Quincy’s father-in-law as superintendent of stamps.

Other Presidents retained relatives at the White House in secretarial roles, including James Madison, James Monroe, Andrew Jackson, John Tyler and James Buchanan. Zachary Taylor kept his brother and son-in-law on the government payroll, using military commissions, as unofficial presidential advisers. President Ulysses S. Grant had many direct family members on the government payroll or at the White House. His brother, Orvil, was implicated in scandals involving Indian trading posts.

In later years, Woodrow Wilson, Franklin Roosevelt and Dwight Eisenhower had family members as secretaries or aides. Kennedy also appointed his brother-in-law, Sargent Shriver, as the first head of the Peace Corps.

---

Message 171 of 277 (837101) 07-26-2018 6:35 PM

Reply to: Message 170 by Faith 07-26-2018 6:32 PM

Agreed, so why do you never bring anything but unsupported assertions, innuendo, misrepresentation and patently false material?

To convince anyone you need to bring something with substance and worth.