In addition to all his other failings, another example showing Rump is
a dingdong.

He said roughly "Anyone who thinks the plane [today] wasn't brought
down by terrorist is 100% wrong. 100%."

Not probably, but 100%.

Like there were no plane crashes before there were terrorists crashing
planes.

What a dingdong, fool, jackass, etc.

On Fri, 20 May 2016 05:24:25 -0400, Micky
wrote:

In addition to all his other failings, another example showing Rump is
a dingdong.

He said roughly "Anyone who thinks the plane [today] wasn't brought
down by terrorist is 100% wrong. 100%."

Not probably, but 100%.

Like there were no plane crashes before there were terrorists crashing
planes.

What a dingdong, fool, jackass, etc.

He's a dingaling too.

On 5/20/2016 5:37 AM, Micky wrote:
On Fri, 20 May 2016 05:24:25 -0400, Micky
wrote:

In addition to all his other failings, another example showing Rump is
a dingdong.

He said roughly "Anyone who thinks the plane [today] wasn't brought
down by terrorist is 100% wrong. 100%."

Not probably, but 100%.

Like there were no plane crashes before there were terrorists crashing
planes.

What a dingdong, fool, jackass, etc.

He's a dingaling too.


Might be a wingnut, and a winger dinger?

--
..
Christopher A. Young
learn more about Jesus
.. www.lds.org
..
..

On 05/20/2016 03:24 AM, Micky wrote:
What a dingdong, fool, jackass, etc.

That's President Dingdong to you. The alternative is a real dong
although she doesn't have one. As far as I know.

rbowman wrote:
On 05/20/2016 03:24 AM, Micky wrote:
What a dingdong, fool, jackass, etc.

That's President Dingdong to you. The alternative is a real dong
although she doesn't have one. As far as I know.

Do strap-ons count ?

--
Snag

On Fri, 20 May 2016 09:52:53 -0500
"Terry Coombs" wrote:

rbowman wrote:
On 05/20/2016 03:24 AM, Micky wrote:
What a dingdong, fool, jackass, etc.

That's President Dingdong to you. The alternative is a real dong
although she doesn't have one. As far as I know.

Do strap-ons count ?


You want to Hump Rump?

On Friday, May 20, 2016 at 5:24:44 AM UTC-4, Micky wrote:
In addition to all his other failings, another example showing Rump is
a dingdong.

He said roughly "Anyone who thinks the plane [today] wasn't brought
down by terrorist is 100% wrong. 100%."

Not probably, but 100%.

Like there were no plane crashes before there were terrorists crashing
planes.

What a dingdong, fool, jackass, etc.

Agree. It sure isn't 100% or even close to that at this point.

One timeline I heard on the news goes like this. The pilot said
goodbye to Greek ATC. About 40 mins later, Egyptian ATC was unable
to contact the plane. They tried the emergency freq and got no
reply there either. Two mins later, the plane took it's first
unusual action, the 90 deg right turn, followed by a 360 and crash.

OK, so ATC can't contact the plane. To have that happen for a few
mins isn't unusual. They would try for awhile before going to the
emergency channel. Let's say they waited just 5 mins, then tried
on the emergency freq for 5 mins. So you have 5 + 5 + 2 mins of
no response, with the plane flying normally, before the plane
abruptly changes course. That isn't
consistent with any plane being brought down by a bomb that I've
ever heard of. It would make something like pilot suicide far
more likely. But of course that assumes that timeline is correct.

One thing for sure, we don't know much at this point. I've never
seen so many people basically concluding that it's definitely, or
almost definitely a bomb, based on so little. And it would be fitting
if they are wrong in this case.

On Friday, May 20, 2016 at 10:53:00 AM UTC-4, Terry Coombs wrote:
rbowman wrote:
On 05/20/2016 03:24 AM, Micky wrote:
What a dingdong, fool, jackass, etc.

That's President Dingdong to you. The alternative is a real dong
although she doesn't have one. As far as I know.

Do strap-ons count ?

--
Snag

Who wears it, Hillary or Huma?

On Fri, 20 May 2016 08:54:17 -0700 (PDT), trader_4
wrote:

On Friday, May 20, 2016 at 5:24:44 AM UTC-4, Micky wrote:
In addition to all his other failings, another example showing Rump is
a dingdong.

He said roughly "Anyone who thinks the plane [today] wasn't brought
down by terrorist is 100% wrong. 100%."

I heard it again, it was more closely "blown out of the sky" not
"brought down by terrorists", but that's either what he meant or what
he wanted people to think he meant. He often uses vague words so he
can claim later he meant something else.

Not probably, but 100%.

Like there were no plane crashes before there were terrorists crashing
planes.

What a dingdong, fool, jackass, etc.

Agree. It sure isn't 100% or even close to that at this point.

One timeline I heard on the news goes like this. The pilot said
goodbye to Greek ATC. About 40 mins later, Egyptian ATC was unable
to contact the plane. They tried the emergency freq and got no
reply there either. Two mins later, the plane took it's first
unusual action, the 90 deg right turn, followed by a 360 and crash.

OK, so ATC can't contact the plane. To have that happen for a few
mins isn't unusual. They would try for awhile before going to the
emergency channel. Let's say they waited just 5 mins, then tried
on the emergency freq for 5 mins. So you have 5 + 5 + 2 mins of
no response, with the plane flying normally, before the plane
abruptly changes course. That isn't
consistent with any plane being brought down by a bomb that I've
ever heard of. It would make something like pilot suicide far
more likely.

Besides mechanical failure, one (Egyptian?) pilot has committed
suicide already . Was this a French airplane or an Egyptian one, or
something else? IIRD Usually the name of the airline is prominent
even in early news reports, but it isn't this time.

But of course that assumes that timeline is correct.

One thing for sure, we don't know much at this point. I've never
seen so many people basically concluding that it's definitely, or
almost definitely a bomb, based on so little. And it would be fitting
if they are wrong in this case.

They're learning from Rump.

On Fri, 20 May 2016 05:24:25 -0400, Micky
wrote:

In addition to all his other failings, another example showing Rump is
a dingdong.

He said roughly "Anyone who thinks the plane [today] wasn't brought
down by terrorist is 100% wrong. 100%."

As I said, more closely he said "blown out of the sky" and if it turns
out to be mechanically caused, he'll say, That's what I said, knocked
out of the sky. He'll say that's the same as blown and it will sound
like quibbling to diagree (even though blown calls up an image of a
bomb BLOWing up and knocked, if anything sounds like a noise a
(reciprocating) engine makes, iow, engine failure, and that's exactly
why he said "blown"). People who want to be more believable liars
can find a lesson in this.

Not probably, but 100%.

Like there were no plane crashes before there were terrorists crashing
planes.

What a dingdong, fool, jackass, etc. [and dingaling]

I've been telling my friends in RL that that Rump says he'll name one
of these people means nothing. He just wants votes. He made promises
before getting the contract for the old post office on Pennsylvania
Avenue and he broke those.

Except the writer below is wrong on one point, "uncharacteristically".
He's thinking of the strong statements like 100%, but ignoring the
vagueness often in the same and other statements, "blown out of the
sky."

So:
"6. Trump’s uncharacteristically nuanced announcement should alarm
conservatives who fear his tendency toward expediency over principle.

The Donald stated explicitly in March that he would only nominate
justices from the list that he was going to release. But his press
release yesterday described the judges merely as “people he would
consider as potential replacements for Justice Scalia.”

“I plan to use this list as a guide,” he now says.

Big picture, only someone who is naïve would trust Trump to follow
through on all or even most of his campaign promises. Anyone who
understands how government works recognizes that much of what he
espouses is either infeasible and probably not what he really
believes.

This scares the bejesus out of smart movement conservatives, who
believe Trump has not demonstrated that he has a moral compass and
that he lacks core principles to guide him on the issues. He
flippantly flip-flops and refuses to apologize. He used to support
abortion, for instance. What’s to say he won’t do so again in the
future? Or that it won’t be a litmus test?

“I am thrilled by this list,” John Yoo, who drafted the infamous
torture memos for the Bush Justice Department and now teaches law,
writes in National Review. “But that being said, I cannot trust Trump
to keep his word. He has already flip-flopped on so many issues,
before, during, and after the primary campaign. How do we know he
would not start wheeling and dealing on judicial appointments if he
were to win the Oval Office?”

This is why conservative radio host Hugh Hewitt, a Harvard Law grad
who served in the Reagan Justice Department, says Trump now must name
THE person he’d tap to replace Scalia:"

Hewitt still doesn't get it. Naming one person would make no
difference. He wouldn't feel bound by anything he said. He'd say,
Things have changed. Maybe he'd say, That guy had a toothache and
he may not be healthy enough to serve, so I'm changing. What will
conservative or others do, sue him?

On Friday, May 20, 2016 at 1:07:35 PM UTC-4, Micky wrote:
On Fri, 20 May 2016 08:54:17 -0700 (PDT), trader_4
wrote:

On Friday, May 20, 2016 at 5:24:44 AM UTC-4, Micky wrote:
In addition to all his other failings, another example showing Rump is
a dingdong.

He said roughly "Anyone who thinks the plane [today] wasn't brought
down by terrorist is 100% wrong. 100%."

I heard it again, it was more closely "blown out of the sky" not
"brought down by terrorists", but that's either what he meant or what
he wanted people to think he meant. He often uses vague words so he
can claim later he meant something else.

Not probably, but 100%.

Like there were no plane crashes before there were terrorists crashing
planes.

What a dingdong, fool, jackass, etc.

Agree. It sure isn't 100% or even close to that at this point.

One timeline I heard on the news goes like this. The pilot said
goodbye to Greek ATC. About 40 mins later, Egyptian ATC was unable
to contact the plane. They tried the emergency freq and got no
reply there either. Two mins later, the plane took it's first
unusual action, the 90 deg right turn, followed by a 360 and crash.

OK, so ATC can't contact the plane. To have that happen for a few
mins isn't unusual. They would try for awhile before going to the
emergency channel. Let's say they waited just 5 mins, then tried
on the emergency freq for 5 mins. So you have 5 + 5 + 2 mins of
no response, with the plane flying normally, before the plane
abruptly changes course. That isn't
consistent with any plane being brought down by a bomb that I've
ever heard of. It would make something like pilot suicide far
more likely.

Besides mechanical failure, one (Egyptian?) pilot has committed
suicide already . Was this a French airplane or an Egyptian one, or
something else? IIRD Usually the name of the airline is prominent
even in early news reports, but it isn't this time.

It was an A320 flown by EgyptAir. IDK how you could miss the airline,
it's been in every report.

On Fri, 20 May 2016 10:21:20 -0700 (PDT), trader_4
wrote:

On Friday, May 20, 2016 at 1:07:35 PM UTC-4, Micky wrote:
On Fri, 20 May 2016 08:54:17 -0700 (PDT), trader_4
wrote:

On Friday, May 20, 2016 at 5:24:44 AM UTC-4, Micky wrote:
In addition to all his other failings, another example showing Rump is
a dingdong.

He said roughly "Anyone who thinks the plane [today] wasn't brought
down by terrorist is 100% wrong. 100%."

I heard it again, it was more closely "blown out of the sky" not
"brought down by terrorists", but that's either what he meant or what
he wanted people to think he meant. He often uses vague words so he
can claim later he meant something else.

Not probably, but 100%.

Like there were no plane crashes before there were terrorists crashing
planes.

What a dingdong, fool, jackass, etc.

Agree. It sure isn't 100% or even close to that at this point.

One timeline I heard on the news goes like this. The pilot said
goodbye to Greek ATC. About 40 mins later, Egyptian ATC was unable
to contact the plane. They tried the emergency freq and got no
reply there either. Two mins later, the plane took it's first
unusual action, the 90 deg right turn, followed by a 360 and crash.

OK, so ATC can't contact the plane. To have that happen for a few
mins isn't unusual. They would try for awhile before going to the
emergency channel. Let's say they waited just 5 mins, then tried
on the emergency freq for 5 mins. So you have 5 + 5 + 2 mins of
no response, with the plane flying normally, before the plane
abruptly changes course. That isn't
consistent with any plane being brought down by a bomb that I've
ever heard of. It would make something like pilot suicide far
more likely.

Besides mechanical failure, one (Egyptian?) pilot has committed
suicide already . Was this a French airplane or an Egyptian one, or
something else? IIRD Usually the name of the airline is prominent
even in early news reports, but it isn't this time.

It was an A320 flown by EgyptAir. IDK how you could miss the airline,
it's been in every report.

I just saw the airline name a few minutes ago. I guess I ignore stuff
like that. Sorry for what would have been a red herring.

Of course a suicide by one EgyptAir pilot is very unlikely to be the
start of a trend. Oops, I meant to say, if it wasn't a terrorist,
anyone who tells you it wasn't pilot suicide is wrong 100%. 100%.

On Friday, May 20, 2016 at 1:20:08 PM UTC-4, Micky wrote:
On Fri, 20 May 2016 05:24:25 -0400, Micky
wrote:

In addition to all his other failings, another example showing Rump is
a dingdong.

He said roughly "Anyone who thinks the plane [today] wasn't brought
down by terrorist is 100% wrong. 100%."

As I said, more closely he said "blown out of the sky" and if it turns
out to be mechanically caused, he'll say, That's what I said, knocked
out of the sky. He'll say that's the same as blown and it will sound
like quibbling to diagree (even though blown calls up an image of a
bomb BLOWing up and knocked, if anything sounds like a noise a
(reciprocating) engine makes, iow, engine failure, and that's exactly
why he said "blown"). People who want to be more believable liars
can find a lesson in this.


Yeah, that's the Trump method. And guys like O'Reilly and Hannity let
him get away with it. Trump was on with Hannity the other night. The
big topic was Hannity can't understand why any Republicans, like Paul Ryan
for example, would have any problem supporting Trump. So, Hannity goes
down the list of things that people have a problem with, like Trump both
saying he wants a big tax cut and then also saying the wealthy could and
will pay more. So, Trump just says that when he said "more", it was in
reference to the tax rate possibly winding up higher than his 25%.
Hannity says, OK, next. As if Trump just repeating that version
there for him means that the other versions of what he said no longer
exist. Trump was on the Today Show and asked only one question about
taxes. "Do you believe the wealthy should pay more in taxes?" "Yes,
I do" was Trump's answer. Now, how anyone could believe that was in
relation to his 25% proposed point and not relative to the taxes they
are paying now, is beyond me. What you need to do, to be fair, is to
get the video and audios of Trump flipping, and play them for him so
people can see what he's really said. Instead Hannity just goes down
the laundry list, Trump gives his version of what he says he meant,
Hannity somehow accepts this one version as the definitive one, ignores
all the contradicting ones. Then he's perplexed as to why everyone
doesn't just hail Trump as the great, honest, consistent one.




Not probably, but 100%.

Like there were no plane crashes before there were terrorists crashing
planes.

What a dingdong, fool, jackass, etc. [and dingaling]

I've been telling my friends in RL that that Rump says he'll name one
of these people means nothing. He just wants votes. He made promises
before getting the contract for the old post office on Pennsylvania
Avenue and he broke those.


Well, I do give Trump credit for putting out the list. He could try
to do what he wants anyway. But with it in black and white, with the
GOP controlling the Senate, it would be extremely difficult for him to
go off and nominate some lib or moderate instead. And impossible for
him to get it approved. And to try to pull it would create enormous
backlash and problems for Trump getting anything he wants through
Congress.




Except the writer below is wrong on one point, "uncharacteristically".
He's thinking of the strong statements like 100%, but ignoring the
vagueness often in the same and other statements, "blown out of the
sky."

So:
"6. Trumps uncharacteristically nuanced announcement should alarm
conservatives who fear his tendency toward expediency over principle.

The Donald stated explicitly in March that he would only nominate
justices from the list that he was going to release. But his press
release yesterday described the judges merely as €œpeople he would
consider as potential replacements for Justice Scalia.€�

€œI plan to use this list as a guide,€� he now says.

Big picture, only someone who is naïve would trust Trump to follow
through on all or even most of his campaign promises. Anyone who
understands how government works recognizes that much of what he
espouses is either infeasible and probably not what he really
believes.


On a lot of what he's promised, especially the big things like
deporting 11 mil illegals, I agree.



This scares the bejesus out of smart movement conservatives, who
believe Trump has not demonstrated that he has a moral compass and
that he lacks core principles to guide him on the issues. He
flippantly flip-flops and refuses to apologize. He used to support
abortion, for instance. Whats to say he wont do so again in the
future? Or that it wont be a litmus test?

€œI am thrilled by this list,€� John Yoo, who drafted the infamous
torture memos for the Bush Justice Department and now teaches law,
writes in National Review. €œBut that being said, I cannot trust Trump
to keep his word. He has already flip-flopped on so many issues,
before, during, and after the primary campaign. How do we know he
would not start wheeling and dealing on judicial appointments if he
were to win the Oval Office?€�


I agree, that's possible, but if he wants to get them approved, it's
unlikely. Plus, Trump isn't some ideologue that's suddenly going to
try to force libs onto the SC. I don't think he cares all that much
one way or the other. So, choosing from that list, getting them easily
approved would work and there is no reason to go off the reservation.
Actually, the SC thing holds out some hope that the GOP can control
him on major policy issues.



This is why conservative radio host Hugh Hewitt, a Harvard Law grad
who served in the Reagan Justice Department, says Trump now must name
THE person hed tap to replace Scalia:"

Hewitt still doesn't get it. Naming one person would make no
difference. He wouldn't feel bound by anything he said. He'd say,
Things have changed. Maybe he'd say, That guy had a toothache and
he may not be healthy enough to serve, so I'm changing. What will
conservative or others do, sue him?

Sure, he could change on one versus a list too. But Hewitt is way out
there. Most conservatives are OK with his list and it has helped them
to be able to support Trump.

On Fri, 20 May 2016 11:00:33 -0700 (PDT), trader_4
wrote:


I've been telling my friends in RL that that Rump says he'll name one
of these people means nothing. He just wants votes. He made promises
before getting the contract for the old post office on Pennsylvania
Avenue and he broke those.


Well, I do give Trump credit for putting out the list. He could try
to do what he wants anyway. But with it in black and white, with the
GOP controlling the Senate, it would be extremely difficult for him to
go off and nominate some lib or moderate instead. And impossible for
him to get it approved. And to try to pull it would create enormous

I woudln't asssume either of these, difficult or impossiblet. LBJ of
course knew well most of the senators he was dealing with, and a few
of the Reps, but he also knew how to make deals to get what he wanted
passed. Rump would at least try to do the same thing. He might just
bribe some with money.

backlash and problems for Trump getting anything he wants through
Congress.

You and I know that, but he might not.

BTW, he's already said he may put more names on the list. One of the
reasons I don't use my real name here is that I don't want to mess up
my chances for something good, by antagonizing someone. So I'm hoping
I'll be on the list.

Except the writer below is wrong on one point, "uncharacteristically".
He's thinking of the strong statements like 100%, but ignoring the
vagueness often in the same and other statements, "blown out of the
sky."

So:
"6. Trump’s uncharacteristically nuanced announcement should alarm
conservatives who fear his tendency toward expediency over principle.

The Donald stated explicitly in March that he would only nominate
justices from the list that he was going to release. But his press
release yesterday described the judges merely as “people he would
consider as potential replacements for Justice Scalia.”

“I plan to use this list as a guide,” he now says.

Big picture, only someone who is naïve would trust Trump to follow
through on all or even most of his campaign promises. Anyone who
understands how government works recognizes that much of what he
espouses is either infeasible and probably not what he really
believes.


On a lot of what he's promised, especially the big things like
deporting 11 mil illegals, I agree.



This scares the bejesus out of smart movement conservatives, who
believe Trump has not demonstrated that he has a moral compass and
that he lacks core principles to guide him on the issues. He
flippantly flip-flops and refuses to apologize. He used to support
abortion, for instance. What’s to say he won’t do so again in the
future? Or that it won’t be a litmus test?

“I am thrilled by this list,” John Yoo, who drafted the infamous
torture memos for the Bush Justice Department and now teaches law,
writes in National Review. “But that being said, I cannot trust Trump
to keep his word. He has already flip-flopped on so many issues,
before, during, and after the primary campaign. How do we know he
would not start wheeling and dealing on judicial appointments if he
were to win the Oval Office?”


I agree, that's possible, but if he wants to get them approved, it's
unlikely. Plus, Trump isn't some ideologue that's suddenly going to
try to force libs onto the SC. I don't think he cares all that much
one way or the other.

That's true. Although/besides (as appropriate) I'm not sure he's even
seen the list. One or two of them have said very unnice things about
him.

So, choosing from that list, getting them easily
approved would work and there is no reason to go off the reservation.
Actually, the SC thing holds out some hope that the GOP can control
him on major policy issues.



This is why conservative radio host Hugh Hewitt, a Harvard Law grad
who served in the Reagan Justice Department, says Trump now must name
THE person he’d tap to replace Scalia:"

Hewitt still doesn't get it. Naming one person would make no
difference. He wouldn't feel bound by anything he said. He'd say,
Things have changed. Maybe he'd say, That guy had a toothache and
he may not be healthy enough to serve, so I'm changing. What will
conservative or others do, sue him?

Sure, he could change on one versus a list too. But Hewitt is way out
there. Most conservatives are OK with his list and it has helped them
to be able to support Trump.

On Friday, May 20, 2016 at 3:17:49 PM UTC-4, Micky wrote:
On Fri, 20 May 2016 11:00:33 -0700 (PDT), trader_4
wrote:


I've been telling my friends in RL that that Rump says he'll name one
of these people means nothing. He just wants votes. He made promises
before getting the contract for the old post office on Pennsylvania
Avenue and he broke those.


Well, I do give Trump credit for putting out the list. He could try
to do what he wants anyway. But with it in black and white, with the
GOP controlling the Senate, it would be extremely difficult for him to
go off and nominate some lib or moderate instead. And impossible for
him to get it approved. And to try to pull it would create enormous

I woudln't asssume either of these, difficult or impossiblet. LBJ of
course knew well most of the senators he was dealing with, and a few
of the Reps, but he also knew how to make deals to get what he wanted
passed. Rump would at least try to do the same thing. He might just
bribe some with money.


Unless the GOP loses the Senate, I can't imagine how Trump could
appoint a lib judge and ever get it passed. The main thing here is
what would the point be? There is no point. Either Trump really
wants to put a conservative on the court or he doesn't really much
care. In the latter case, what exactly would the point be to ****
off all the GOP and all his Trump followers by appointing other
than a conservative judge? Trump doesn't gain anything, but he
loses a lot.


And why are you exclusively focused on Trump, whether Trump would
honor his list, when Hillary has even worse defects and you ignore
them. Like Bill taking $500K for a speech, the foundation getting
$135 mil in pledges, collecting $35 mil so far, from the folks who
needed state dept approval to sell 20% of the uranium assets in the
US to the Russians? They got the money, the state dept approved the
deal. What would happen if your local town mayor pulled that on a
$100K paving contract? THAT is the worst example of public corruption
I have ever seen and it's just one example of what Hillary has been
up to. She clearly violated the constitution prohibition on taking
money from a foreign govt while in office. Bill collected $500K for
one speech, paid for by the govt of Abu Dhabi, which went right into
their joint pocket. THAT is a clear violation of the constitution
and likely one of the things the FBI is looking into. So, why does
all that get a free pass, it's all peachy keen, while you're so
worried about whether Trump would honor his SC list? And don't tell
me the above is "conspiracy theory", it's fact. Time to start being
objective.

On Friday, May 20, 2016 at 5:18:18 PM UTC-4, trader_4 wrote:


Regarding the plane crash and if Trump is right or not, I just
saw on NBC news that they now have ACARS system reporting data
from the plane just before the crash. At 12:26 AM, it reported
multiple sensors, for the cockpit rear window and the lavatory
that's near the cockpit. Then a couple mins later, smoke in the
avionics bay. Then a minute later, problems with the computers
that control flight. Shortly after is when it crashed.

IDK what all that means, except that it doesn't fit a typical
high explosive bomb bringing the plane down suddenly. It still
could be a bomb, maybe in the lavatory, that wasn't that powerful,
but still caused damage, started a fire, etc. Or it could be an
electrical fire in the wiring or other fire that caused all the
sensor trips, that
eventually compromised it to the point flight control was lost.
Also during that several mins, there was apparently no communication
from the pilots.

On 05/20/2016 09:55 AM, trader_4 wrote:
On Friday, May 20, 2016 at 10:53:00 AM UTC-4, Terry Coombs wrote:
rbowman wrote:
On 05/20/2016 03:24 AM, Micky wrote:
What a dingdong, fool, jackass, etc.

That's President Dingdong to you. The alternative is a real dong
although she doesn't have one. As far as I know.

Do strap-ons count ?

--
Snag

Who wears it, Hillary or Huma?


http://www.amazon.com/Pipedreams-Fet.../dp/B002HRENMK

Sweet Jesus, Amazon is getting into everything. Even the reviews were
TMI. I knew they existed and I should have let it go at that.

On Fri, 20 May 2016 17:07:35 -0700 (PDT), trader_4
wrote:

On Friday, May 20, 2016 at 5:18:18 PM UTC-4, trader_4 wrote:


Regarding the plane crash and if Trump is right or not, I just
saw on NBC news that they now have ACARS system reporting data

I watched that very show.

from the plane just before the crash. At 12:26 AM, it reported
multiple sensors, for the cockpit rear window and the lavatory
that's near the cockpit. Then a couple mins later, smoke in the
avionics bay. Then a minute later, problems with the computers
that control flight. Shortly after is when it crashed.

IDK what all that means, except that it doesn't fit a typical
high explosive bomb bringing the plane down suddenly. It still
could be a bomb, maybe in the lavatory, that wasn't that powerful,
but still caused damage, started a fire, etc. Or it could be an

The guy said that fire doesn't spread that quickly, but he wasn't
willing to give a single guess as to what it was.

He should take lessons in confidence from Rump. It might get him
fired, but at least he'd look confident.

electrical fire in the wiring or other fire that caused all the
sensor trips, that
eventually compromised it to the point flight control was lost.
Also during that several mins, there was apparently no communication
from the pilots.

On Fri, 20 May 2016 14:18:13 -0700 (PDT), trader_4
wrote:

On Friday, May 20, 2016 at 3:17:49 PM UTC-4, Micky wrote:
On Fri, 20 May 2016 11:00:33 -0700 (PDT), trader_4
wrote:


I've been telling my friends in RL that that Rump says he'll name one
of these people means nothing. He just wants votes. He made promises
before getting the contract for the old post office on Pennsylvania
Avenue and he broke those.


Well, I do give Trump credit for putting out the list. He could try
to do what he wants anyway. But with it in black and white, with the
GOP controlling the Senate, it would be extremely difficult for him to
go off and nominate some lib or moderate instead. And impossible for
him to get it approved. And to try to pull it would create enormous

I woudln't asssume either of these, difficult or impossiblet. LBJ of
course knew well most of the senators he was dealing with, and a few
of the Reps, but he also knew how to make deals to get what he wanted
passed. Rump would at least try to do the same thing. He might just
bribe some with money.


Unless the GOP loses the Senate, I can't imagine how Trump could
appoint a lib judge and ever get it passed. The main thing here is
what would the point be? There is no point. Either Trump really
wants to put a conservative on the court or he doesn't really much
care. In the latter case, what exactly would the point be to ****
off all the GOP and all his Trump followers by appointing other
than a conservative judge? Trump doesn't gain anything, but he
loses a lot.


And why are you exclusively focused on Trump, whether Trump would
honor his list, when Hillary has even worse defects and you ignore
them. Like Bill taking $500K for a speech, the foundation getting
$135 mil in pledges, collecting $35 mil so far, from the folks who
needed state dept approval to sell 20% of the uranium assets in the
US to the Russians? They got the money, the state dept approved the
deal. What would happen if your local town mayor pulled that on a
$100K paving contract? THAT is the worst example of public corruption
I have ever seen and it's just one example of what Hillary has been
up to. She clearly violated the constitution prohibition on taking
money from a foreign govt while in office. Bill collected $500K for
one speech, paid for by the govt of Abu Dhabi, which went right into
their joint pocket. THAT is a clear violation of the constitution

Clear!! Now you're sounding like Trump. What national office did
Bill Clinton hold then? Hint, none at all. So much for your
violation of the constitution, let alone a clear one.

I'm sure the story about Hillary is malarkey too. If you guys will
believe one, you'll believe others.


and likely one of the things the FBI is looking into. So, why does
all that get a free pass, it's all peachy keen, while you're so
worried about whether Trump would honor his SC list? And don't tell
me the above is "conspiracy theory", it's fact. Time to start being
objective.

On Saturday, May 21, 2016 at 1:49:23 AM UTC-4, Micky wrote:
On Fri, 20 May 2016 14:18:13 -0700 (PDT), trader_4
wrote:

On Friday, May 20, 2016 at 3:17:49 PM UTC-4, Micky wrote:
On Fri, 20 May 2016 11:00:33 -0700 (PDT), trader_4
wrote:


I've been telling my friends in RL that that Rump says he'll name one
of these people means nothing. He just wants votes. He made promises
before getting the contract for the old post office on Pennsylvania
Avenue and he broke those.


Well, I do give Trump credit for putting out the list. He could try
to do what he wants anyway. But with it in black and white, with the
GOP controlling the Senate, it would be extremely difficult for him to
go off and nominate some lib or moderate instead. And impossible for
him to get it approved. And to try to pull it would create enormous

I woudln't asssume either of these, difficult or impossiblet. LBJ of
course knew well most of the senators he was dealing with, and a few
of the Reps, but he also knew how to make deals to get what he wanted
passed. Rump would at least try to do the same thing. He might just
bribe some with money.


Unless the GOP loses the Senate, I can't imagine how Trump could
appoint a lib judge and ever get it passed. The main thing here is
what would the point be? There is no point. Either Trump really
wants to put a conservative on the court or he doesn't really much
care. In the latter case, what exactly would the point be to ****
off all the GOP and all his Trump followers by appointing other
than a conservative judge? Trump doesn't gain anything, but he
loses a lot.


And why are you exclusively focused on Trump, whether Trump would
honor his list, when Hillary has even worse defects and you ignore
them. Like Bill taking $500K for a speech, the foundation getting
$135 mil in pledges, collecting $35 mil so far, from the folks who
needed state dept approval to sell 20% of the uranium assets in the
US to the Russians? They got the money, the state dept approved the
deal. What would happen if your local town mayor pulled that on a
$100K paving contract? THAT is the worst example of public corruption
I have ever seen and it's just one example of what Hillary has been
up to. She clearly violated the constitution prohibition on taking
money from a foreign govt while in office. Bill collected $500K for
one speech, paid for by the govt of Abu Dhabi, which went right into
their joint pocket. THAT is a clear violation of the constitution

Clear!! Now you're sounding like Trump. What national office did
Bill Clinton hold then? Hint, none at all. So much for your
violation of the constitution, let alone a clear one.


See, this is the sad part. You're all over Trump. This time it's
over a minor point about a plane crash that has little to do with
anything. But point out that Bill & Hillary took $500K for a speech
paid for by Abu Dhabi and you give them a pass. They file a JOINT
tax return. The money is one and the same, whether Hillary earned
it or Bill earned it, it's still going into her pocket. Are you
going to argue that the intent of the framers of the constitution
was to bar Madison from taking money from a foreign govt, but they
were OK with his wife taking it? And even if you think you can't
prove it to the extent of a criminal violation, WTF is there no
moral outrage, not even a peep?


I'm sure the story about Hillary is malarkey too. If you guys will
believe one, you'll believe others.


And now you've demonstrated that you're really, really a total partisan hack.
You're too ****ing lazy to go check out the uranium story? Instead, you
just pretend it can't be true, no checking even required. The more I listen
to jerks like you, the more likely I am to vote for Trump myself. And
don't come back here with any more lame attacks on Trump either, not
until you're willing to put Hillary under the same scrutiny.




and likely one of the things the FBI is looking into. So, why does
all that get a free pass, it's all peachy keen, while you're so
worried about whether Trump would honor his SC list? And don't tell
me the above is "conspiracy theory", it's fact. Time to start being
objective.

Unfortunately for you lib KoolAid drinkers, objectivity is out of the
question.

On Sat, 21 May 2016 06:48:37 -0700 (PDT), trader_4
wrote:

On Saturday, May 21, 2016 at 1:49:23 AM UTC-4, Micky wrote:
On Fri, 20 May 2016 14:18:13 -0700 (PDT), trader_4
wrote:

On Friday, May 20, 2016 at 3:17:49 PM UTC-4, Micky wrote:
On Fri, 20 May 2016 11:00:33 -0700 (PDT), trader_4
wrote:


I've been telling my friends in RL that that Rump says he'll name one
of these people means nothing. He just wants votes. He made promises
before getting the contract for the old post office on Pennsylvania
Avenue and he broke those.


Well, I do give Trump credit for putting out the list. He could try
to do what he wants anyway. But with it in black and white, with the
GOP controlling the Senate, it would be extremely difficult for him to
go off and nominate some lib or moderate instead. And impossible for
him to get it approved. And to try to pull it would create enormous

I woudln't asssume either of these, difficult or impossiblet. LBJ of
course knew well most of the senators he was dealing with, and a few
of the Reps, but he also knew how to make deals to get what he wanted
passed. Rump would at least try to do the same thing. He might just
bribe some with money.


Unless the GOP loses the Senate, I can't imagine how Trump could
appoint a lib judge and ever get it passed. The main thing here is
what would the point be? There is no point. Either Trump really
wants to put a conservative on the court or he doesn't really much
care. In the latter case, what exactly would the point be to ****
off all the GOP and all his Trump followers by appointing other
than a conservative judge? Trump doesn't gain anything, but he
loses a lot.


And why are you exclusively focused on Trump, whether Trump would
honor his list, when Hillary has even worse defects and you ignore
them. Like Bill taking $500K for a speech, the foundation getting
$135 mil in pledges, collecting $35 mil so far, from the folks who
needed state dept approval to sell 20% of the uranium assets in the
US to the Russians? They got the money, the state dept approved the
deal. What would happen if your local town mayor pulled that on a
$100K paving contract? THAT is the worst example of public corruption
I have ever seen and it's just one example of what Hillary has been
up to. She clearly violated the constitution prohibition on taking
money from a foreign govt while in office. Bill collected $500K for
one speech, paid for by the govt of Abu Dhabi, which went right into
their joint pocket. THAT is a clear violation of the constitution

Clear!! Now you're sounding like Trump. What national office did
Bill Clinton hold then? Hint, none at all. So much for your
violation of the constitution, let alone a clear one.


See, this is the sad part. You're all over Trump. This time it's
over a minor point about a plane crash that has little to do with

It's a big point because it shows how he jumps to conclusions.

anything. But point out that Bill & Hillary took $500K for a speech
paid for by Abu Dhabi and you give them a pass. They file a JOINT
tax return. The money is one and the same, whether Hillary earned
it or Bill earned it, it's still going into her pocket. Are you

A, do you know they've filed a joint return recently. B, do you know
filing a joint return means his income is assigned to her for any
purpose? For this purpose?

You and your wife may look at if it is one and the same but that
doesn't mean the IRS does or that the Constitution does. And it's
certainly not clear, no more than that the plane was downed by a
terrorist is 100%.

going to argue that the intent of the framers of the constitution
was to bar Madison from taking money from a foreign govt, but they
were OK with his wife taking it?

I think that YOU don't know one way or the other, so it's speculation
on your part, and it's certainly not "clear" as you claimed.

And even if you think you can't
prove it to the extent of a criminal violation, WTF is there no
moral outrage, not even a peep?

I'm sure the story about Hillary is malarkey too. If you guys will
believe one, you'll believe others.


And now you've demonstrated that you're really, really a total partisan hack.
You're too ****ing lazy to go check out the uranium story? Instead, you

I waste too much time already on Republican malarkey.

Go find me a convincing link.

just pretend it can't be true, no checking even required. The more I listen
to jerks like you, the more likely I am to vote for Trump myself. And
don't come back here with any more lame attacks on Trump either, not
until you're willing to put Hillary under the same scrutiny.




and likely one of the things the FBI is looking into. So, why does
all that get a free pass, it's all peachy keen, while you're so
worried about whether Trump would honor his SC list? And don't tell
me the above is "conspiracy theory", it's fact. Time to start being
objective.

Unfortunately for you lib KoolAid drinkers, objectivity is out of the
question.

Look in the mirror, bro', and you'll see everything you claim in
others.

On Saturday, May 21, 2016 at 3:29:09 PM UTC-4, Micky wrote:
On Sat, 21 May 2016 06:48:37 -0700 (PDT), trader_4
wrote:

On Saturday, May 21, 2016 at 1:49:23 AM UTC-4, Micky wrote:
On Fri, 20 May 2016 14:18:13 -0700 (PDT), trader_4
wrote:

On Friday, May 20, 2016 at 3:17:49 PM UTC-4, Micky wrote:
On Fri, 20 May 2016 11:00:33 -0700 (PDT), trader_4
wrote:


I've been telling my friends in RL that that Rump says he'll name one
of these people means nothing. He just wants votes. He made promises
before getting the contract for the old post office on Pennsylvania
Avenue and he broke those.


Well, I do give Trump credit for putting out the list. He could try
to do what he wants anyway. But with it in black and white, with the
GOP controlling the Senate, it would be extremely difficult for him to
go off and nominate some lib or moderate instead. And impossible for
him to get it approved. And to try to pull it would create enormous

I woudln't asssume either of these, difficult or impossiblet. LBJ of
course knew well most of the senators he was dealing with, and a few
of the Reps, but he also knew how to make deals to get what he wanted
passed. Rump would at least try to do the same thing. He might just
bribe some with money.


Unless the GOP loses the Senate, I can't imagine how Trump could
appoint a lib judge and ever get it passed. The main thing here is
what would the point be? There is no point. Either Trump really
wants to put a conservative on the court or he doesn't really much
care. In the latter case, what exactly would the point be to ****
off all the GOP and all his Trump followers by appointing other
than a conservative judge? Trump doesn't gain anything, but he
loses a lot.


And why are you exclusively focused on Trump, whether Trump would
honor his list, when Hillary has even worse defects and you ignore
them. Like Bill taking $500K for a speech, the foundation getting
$135 mil in pledges, collecting $35 mil so far, from the folks who
needed state dept approval to sell 20% of the uranium assets in the
US to the Russians? They got the money, the state dept approved the
deal. What would happen if your local town mayor pulled that on a
$100K paving contract? THAT is the worst example of public corruption
I have ever seen and it's just one example of what Hillary has been
up to. She clearly violated the constitution prohibition on taking
money from a foreign govt while in office. Bill collected $500K for
one speech, paid for by the govt of Abu Dhabi, which went right into
their joint pocket. THAT is a clear violation of the constitution

Clear!! Now you're sounding like Trump. What national office did
Bill Clinton hold then? Hint, none at all. So much for your
violation of the constitution, let alone a clear one.


See, this is the sad part. You're all over Trump. This time it's
over a minor point about a plane crash that has little to do with

It's a big point because it shows how he jumps to conclusions.


Sure and Hillary jumping to conclusions that the terrorist attack in
Benghazi was a protest over a movie, well that gets a pass. In fact,
it was even worse, she wasn't jumping to a conclusion, she deliberately
lied to the American people and the families of the dead, for political
reasons. The night before, she had told Chelsea that it was a terrorist
attack. She told the Egyptian PM the same thing. But whoooh! Trump
talks about some plane crash of little substance, and suddenly what he
said is of HUGE importance.


anything. But point out that Bill & Hillary took $500K for a speech
paid for by Abu Dhabi and you give them a pass. They file a JOINT
tax return. The money is one and the same, whether Hillary earned
it or Bill earned it, it's still going into her pocket. Are you

A, do you know they've filed a joint return recently.

Of course, because unlike you I actually follow the news and pay
attention. The Clintons released their tax returns.



B, do you know
filing a joint return means his income is assigned to her for any
purpose? For this purpose?


Well obviously their income is combined for federal tax purposes.
They get the benefit of the tax code that goes to married people
who report their income as combines. If it's good enough for
federal income tax purposes, it should be good enough for determining
if you got paid by a foreign govt. That income from a foreign govt
had to go on their joint return, that both she and Bill signed.




You and your wife may look at if it is one and the same but that
doesn't mean the IRS does or that the Constitution does.

Really? That income from Abu Dhabi would have to go on their
joint return, there is no other way, unless you're telling us they
were outright tax evaders.



And it's
certainly not clear, no more than that the plane was downed by a
terrorist is 100%.


No, nothing is ever clear when it comes to Hillary. Only with Trump.
Got it. She can do no wrong. $500K from Abu Dhabi winds up in the
Clintons hands, funds the house they live in and all they do together,
but hey, it's OK. The uranium sale, pocketing $135 mil there, well
that's OK too, everything is for sale. But OMG, Trump said that plane
crash is 100% terrorist, now there is something to get your shorts up
in a knot about.



going to argue that the intent of the framers of the constitution
was to bar Madison from taking money from a foreign govt, but they
were OK with his wife taking it?

I think that YOU don't know one way or the other, so it's speculation
on your part, and it's certainly not "clear" as you claimed.


Are you totally stupid? The framers didn't want govt officials corrupted
by taking foreign money. IT's clear as a bell. Yet that is EXACTLY
what the Clintons are doing. You're such a partisan hack, it's beyond
belief. If Trump, Romney, Bush ever tried anything like this, having
a foreign govt pay their spouse for a speech while they were in power,
OMG, we'd never hear the end of it from you. And you'd be right.



And even if you think you can't
prove it to the extent of a criminal violation, WTF is there no
moral outrage, not even a peep?

I'm sure the story about Hillary is malarkey too. If you guys will
believe one, you'll believe others.


And now you've demonstrated that you're really, really a total partisan hack.
You're too ****ing lazy to go check out the uranium story? Instead, you

I waste too much time already on Republican malarkey.


LOL. You're the one that had the time to start this thread on Trump.


Go find me a convincing link.


WTF bother. You're mind is obviously totally closed. Your actually
worse than the Trump supporters who don't see anything wrong in anything
he does. The wrongs Clinton does are far worse, it's a sewer of corruption
and you just say it's all peachy keen.



just pretend it can't be true, no checking even required. The more I listen
to jerks like you, the more likely I am to vote for Trump myself. And
don't come back here with any more lame attacks on Trump either, not
until you're willing to put Hillary under the same scrutiny.




and likely one of the things the FBI is looking into. So, why does
all that get a free pass, it's all peachy keen, while you're so
worried about whether Trump would honor his SC list? And don't tell
me the above is "conspiracy theory", it's fact. Time to start being
objective.

Unfortunately for you lib KoolAid drinkers, objectivity is out of the
question.

Look in the mirror, bro', and you'll see everything you claim in
others.

And now you're a total BS liar. I've been here how many times, criticizing
Trump, what he's said, what he's done? I've criticized Hannity, Rush, etc.
The difference is that I'm objective, while you're just a lib partisan hack.