Trump...Just....Lies

[Kilroy2]

It's insane. Any other President who lied this blatantly would be dead in the water

He called Tim Cook (Apple CEO) Tim "Apple"...and then denied he did it.

Despite the fact that it happened in public and of course was on video

Scarborough Can't Believe Trump Denies Calling Apple CEO 'Tim Apple'

Well it probably means that there is a segment of people who can relate to lies for political expediency

Probably why conspiracy theories are taken as the gospel truth when anyone with a mouth can open it and let air out

Make it so

 

[Faun]

These laws were all passed by a handful of politicians that don’t represent true American Values.. it was a reach across the isle for bipartisanship ..

And they would have been deemed unconstitutional when challenged had that been the case. They weren't because the Supreme Court has long upheld those, and laws like them, are covered by the general welfare clause.

 

[Jitss617]

These laws were all passed by a handful of politicians that don’t represent true American Values.. it was a reach across the isle for bipartisanship ..

And they would have been deemed unconstitutional when challenged had that been the case. They weren't because the Supreme Court has long upheld those, and laws like them, are covered by the general welfare clause.

Entitlements are almost never turned down. Especially if passed by Congress that are supposed to represent Americans which these don’t

 

[Faun]

These laws were all passed by a handful of politicians that don’t represent true American Values.. it was a reach across the isle for bipartisanship ..

And they would have been deemed unconstitutional when challenged had that been the case. They weren't because the Supreme Court has long upheld those, and laws like them, are covered by the general welfare clause.

Entitlements are almost never turned down. Especially if passed by Congress that are supposed to represent Americans which these don’t

The Supreme Court doesn't "turn down" entitlements. That's not their role. They're job is strictly determining if a challenged law is constitutional or not.

 

[Jitss617]

These laws were all passed by a handful of politicians that don’t represent true American Values.. it was a reach across the isle for bipartisanship ..

And they would have been deemed unconstitutional when challenged had that been the case. They weren't because the Supreme Court has long upheld those, and laws like them, are covered by the general welfare clause.

Entitlements are almost never turned down. Especially if passed by Congress that are supposed to represent Americans which these don’t

The Supreme Court doesn't "turn down" entitlements. That's not their role. They're job is strictly determining if a challenged law is constitutional or not.

No they usually won’t intervene in laws passed by Congress... and entitlements almost never go away after passed by Congress,, like I said a handful of costal politicians don’t represent true Americans

 

[Faun]

These laws were all passed by a handful of politicians that don’t represent true American Values.. it was a reach across the isle for bipartisanship ..

And they would have been deemed unconstitutional when challenged had that been the case. They weren't because the Supreme Court has long upheld those, and laws like them, are covered by the general welfare clause.

Entitlements are almost never turned down. Especially if passed by Congress that are supposed to represent Americans which these don’t

The Supreme Court doesn't "turn down" entitlements. That's not their role. They're job is strictly determining if a challenged law is constitutional or not.

No they usually won’t intervene in laws passed by Congress... and entitlements almost never go away after passed by Congress,, like I said a handful of costal politicians don’t represent true Americans

Sadly, you remain permanently ignorant.

Social Security: See Helvering v. Davis

Welfare: See Anderson v. Roe

SNAP: See Department of Agriculture v. Moreno

 

[edthecynic]

That's because the HuffPost article didn't say McCain was a white supremacist, and the lying scum Trumpist knew it!
Here is the only mention of a white supremacist in the article, "white supremacist named Richard Quinn, who found himself hired as a political advisor by McCain in 2000."

Trump hasn't hired any white supremacists, yet he's accused of being one. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

Steven Miller

Okay. Then Trump and McCain are white supremacists.

You can divert all you want from the fact that a lying scum Trumpist claimed that the HuffPost called McCain a white supremacist, when they didn't, but I'm glad you are admitting The RAT, Russian Agent Tramp, IS a white supremacist.

Oh, I know you will never admit the truth. You're a leftist.

Oh, I know you will never TELL the truth. You're a Trumpist.

 

[BS Filter]

Trump hasn't hired any white supremacists, yet he's accused of being one. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

Steven Miller

Okay. Then Trump and McCain are white supremacists.

You can divert all you want from the fact that a lying scum Trumpist claimed that the HuffPost called McCain a white supremacist, when they didn't, but I'm glad you are admitting The RAT, Russian Agent Tramp, IS a white supremacist.

Oh, I know you will never admit the truth. You're a leftist.

Oh, I know you will never TELL the truth. You're a Trumpist.

Here's some truth for you. Trump is your President and there's nothing you can do about it.

 

[Jitss617]

These laws were all passed by a handful of politicians that don’t represent true American Values.. it was a reach across the isle for bipartisanship ..

And they would have been deemed unconstitutional when challenged had that been the case. They weren't because the Supreme Court has long upheld those, and laws like them, are covered by the general welfare clause.

Entitlements are almost never turned down. Especially if passed by Congress that are supposed to represent Americans which these don’t

The Supreme Court doesn't "turn down" entitlements. That's not their role. They're job is strictly determining if a challenged law is constitutional or not.

No they usually won’t intervene in laws passed by Congress... and entitlements almost never go away after passed by Congress,, like I said a handful of costal politicians don’t represent true Americans

Sadly, you remain permanently ignorant.

Social Security: See Helvering v. Davis

Welfare: See Anderson v. Roe

SNAP: See Department of Agriculture v. Moreno

Yes in the supreme court won’t intervene on things passed by Congress especially entitlements .. what don’t you understand

 

[Faun]

And they would have been deemed unconstitutional when challenged had that been the case. They weren't because the Supreme Court has long upheld those, and laws like them, are covered by the general welfare clause.

Entitlements are almost never turned down. Especially if passed by Congress that are supposed to represent Americans which these don’t

The Supreme Court doesn't "turn down" entitlements. That's not their role. They're job is strictly determining if a challenged law is constitutional or not.

No they usually won’t intervene in laws passed by Congress... and entitlements almost never go away after passed by Congress,, like I said a handful of costal politicians don’t represent true Americans

Sadly, you remain permanently ignorant.

Social Security: See Helvering v. Davis

Welfare: See Anderson v. Roe

SNAP: See Department of Agriculture v. Moreno

Yes in the supreme court won’t intervene on things passed by Congress especially entitlements .. what don’t you understand

Dumbfuck, they did intervene. Dayum, are you ever rightarded. They heard those cases and ruled they were covered by the general welfare clause.

 

[Jitss617]

Entitlements are almost never turned down. Especially if passed by Congress that are supposed to represent Americans which these don’t

The Supreme Court doesn't "turn down" entitlements. That's not their role. They're job is strictly determining if a challenged law is constitutional or not.

No they usually won’t intervene in laws passed by Congress... and entitlements almost never go away after passed by Congress,, like I said a handful of costal politicians don’t represent true Americans

Sadly, you remain permanently ignorant.

Social Security: See Helvering v. Davis

Welfare: See Anderson v. Roe

SNAP: See Department of Agriculture v. Moreno

Yes in the supreme court won’t intervene on things passed by Congress especially entitlements .. what don’t you understand

Dumbfuck, they did intervene. Dayum, are you ever rightarded. They heard those cases and ruled they were covered by the general welfare clause.

I agree with you! They didnt intervene ! It’s still here.. entitlements passed by a handful of left-wing coastal Democrats and a few bipartisan Republicans .. it will be gone soon

 

[Faun]

The Supreme Court doesn't "turn down" entitlements. That's not their role. They're job is strictly determining if a challenged law is constitutional or not.

No they usually won’t intervene in laws passed by Congress... and entitlements almost never go away after passed by Congress,, like I said a handful of costal politicians don’t represent true Americans

Sadly, you remain permanently ignorant.

Social Security: See Helvering v. Davis

Welfare: See Anderson v. Roe

SNAP: See Department of Agriculture v. Moreno

Yes in the supreme court won’t intervene on things passed by Congress especially entitlements .. what don’t you understand

Dumbfuck, they did intervene. Dayum, are you ever rightarded. They heard those cases and ruled they were covered by the general welfare clause.

I agree with you! They didnt intervene ! It’s still here.. entitlements passed by a handful of left-wing coastal Democrats and a few bipartisan Republicans .. it will be gone soon

You’re deranged. That’s not what I said.

 

[Camp]

How many lies will Trump spew today?

 

[edthecynic]

Steven Miller

Okay. Then Trump and McCain are white supremacists.

You can divert all you want from the fact that a lying scum Trumpist claimed that the HuffPost called McCain a white supremacist, when they didn't, but I'm glad you are admitting The RAT, Russian Agent Tramp, IS a white supremacist.

Oh, I know you will never admit the truth. You're a leftist.

Oh, I know you will never TELL the truth. You're a Trumpist.

Here's some truth for you. Trump is your President and there's nothing you can do about it.

I'm not Russian!

 

[BS Filter]

Okay. Then Trump and McCain are white supremacists.

You can divert all you want from the fact that a lying scum Trumpist claimed that the HuffPost called McCain a white supremacist, when they didn't, but I'm glad you are admitting The RAT, Russian Agent Tramp, IS a white supremacist.

Oh, I know you will never admit the truth. You're a leftist.

Oh, I know you will never TELL the truth. You're a Trumpist.

Here's some truth for you. Trump is your President and there's nothing you can do about it.

I'm not Russian!

You're not an American either.

 

[Oldstyle]

You can keep your doctor wasn’t a lie?

I kept mine, as did the vast majority of the nation.

Thousands lost there doctor because of Obama care

Many millions were able to obtain health insurance they couldn’t previously.

“The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few” ~ Mr. Spock

And someone else had to pay for that...which is why you progressives lied your little asses off about what the ACA would mean!

So? Someone else has to pay for everything the government does. And again, there are no lies. They're exaggerations. You said so yourself.

Jonathon Gruber admitted that they lied about the ACA in order to get it passed, Faun. That's not even debate worthy at this point! He was so smug about them knowing what was "best" for the rest of us that he didn't even bother to lie about what they did! Gruber told several different audiences that the American people were basically too stupid to figure this stuff out and would believe whatever they were told. That isn't some over the top bragging like Trump is prone to do...that's a blatant lie told at the highest level of government with the complicity of the main stream media...all because they thought that THEIR agenda was so needed that the end justified the means!

 

[Oldstyle]

Thousands lost there doctor because of Obama care

Many millions were able to obtain health insurance they couldn’t previously.

“The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few” ~ Mr. Spock

And someone else had to pay for that...which is why you progressives lied your little asses off about what the ACA would mean!

So? Someone else has to pay for everything the government does. And again, there are no lies. They're exaggerations. You said so yourself.

America doesn’t guarantee you anything except
For a heads up from the government about foreign and domestic enemies .. that’s it my friend.. I think you might want to move.

Nope, it also guarantees the government will provide for the general welfare of the nation.

If you think the Founding Fathers defined that "general welfare of the nation" clause as the government giving people lots of freebies then you're incredibly naïve! They didn't think that way. I think they'd be horrified to see what our Federal Government has morphed into!

 

[Jitss617]

No they usually won’t intervene in laws passed by Congress... and entitlements almost never go away after passed by Congress,, like I said a handful of costal politicians don’t represent true Americans

Sadly, you remain permanently ignorant.

Social Security: See Helvering v. Davis

Welfare: See Anderson v. Roe

SNAP: See Department of Agriculture v. Moreno

Yes in the supreme court won’t intervene on things passed by Congress especially entitlements .. what don’t you understand

Dumbfuck, they did intervene. Dayum, are you ever rightarded. They heard those cases and ruled they were covered by the general welfare clause.

I agree with you! They didnt intervene ! It’s still here.. entitlements passed by a handful of left-wing coastal Democrats and a few bipartisan Republicans .. it will be gone soon

You’re deranged. That’s not what I said.

So soon after the 1783 how come they didn’t make in mandatory that we pay for others health care? People were very sick back then, many hungry. Why not put it in the constitution??

 

[sealybobo]

It's insane. Any other President who lied this blatantly would be dead in the water

He called Tim Cook (Apple CEO) Tim "Apple"...and then denied he did it.

Despite the fact that it happened in public and of course was on video

Scarborough Can't Believe Trump Denies Calling Apple CEO 'Tim Apple'

The Trap of Giuliani’s “Perjury Trap” Argument

 

[sealybobo]

For months now Rudy Giuliani has cited a number of reasons to explain why he’s reluctant to have his client sit for an interview with Special Counsel Robert Mueller. But none of those reasons adequately defends such a decision, particularly the notion that a voluntary interview is somehow a “perjury trap.”

As far as back as May, Giuliani was warning about Mueller’s intentions in questioning the president. “What they’re really trying to do is trap him into perjury, and we’re not suckers,” Giuliani told Fox News. The President himself raised the same concern about a “perjury trap” again Monday. And Sunday the former New York mayor told Meet the Press, “I am not going to be rushed into having him testify so that he gets trapped into perjury. And when you tell me that, you know, he should testify because he’s going to tell the truth and he shouldn’t worry, well that’s so silly because it’s somebody’s version of the truth. Not the truth.” Shortly after this statement the former federal prosecutor told host Chuck Todd, “Truth isn’t truth.”

Philosophers have debated the nature of truth for millennia, but “perjury trap” is a precise legal term — and one that Giuliani is cavalierly tossing around in an effort to undermine the credibility of Mueller’s probe.

Needless to say, Mueller’s request to interview Trump does not amount to anything close to a “perjury trap.” Any federal prosecutor would conclude not only that Mueller’s investigation is legitimate — notwithstanding Trump’s cries of a “rigged witch hunt” — but that the president is a relevant witness in both the investigation into Russia’s interference in the 2016 election and the investigation into obstructing the Russia probe.

Even if Giuliani may not recognize it, to prosecutors investigating criminal conduct and to a jury’s determination of guilt or innocence, the truth is the truth. His effort to mislead the public further underscores the importance of Trump submitting to a voluntary interview with the special counsel, as is required by every single other federal official. Trump must be subject to the rigor of answering questions, under the penalty of prosecution for lying, to ensure his best recollection is documented by the special counsel. If Trump wishes to assert his Fifth Amendment right not to testify, he may do so and endure the resulting political consequences. If Trump chooses not to do either, the only conclusion we should draw is that he has something to hide. No other explanation makes sense.