Look out evil doers! Jeff is coming after you! ヽ(€¢€¿€¢)ノ

[8~{} Uncle Deplorable Monster

On Wed, 8 Feb 2017 16:27:50 -0800 (PST), Uncle Monster
wrote:

Look out evil doers! Jeff is coming after you! ?(•?•)?

[8~{} Uncle Deplorable Monster

Hornswoggle. The man is honorable. Tried an tested. Democrats need to
know the true racist were their own party Dixiecrats.

On 02/08/2017 06:27 PM, Uncle Monster wrote:
Look out evil doers! Jeff is coming after you! ヽ(€¢€¿€¢)ノ

[8~{} Uncle Deplorable Monster




Wow that was a surprise.

Speaking about politics here is one thing I have been wondering about.

Before I could do contract work in a nuclear power plant I had to pass a
comprehensive psychological test.

Why isn't this needed before a candidate can even run for office.
How could anyone possibly object? I have a feeling most elected
officials should be held to the same standards some poor slob like me
had to conform to.

On 2/8/17 7:28 PM, Oren wrote:
On Wed, 8 Feb 2017 16:27:50 -0800 (PST), Uncle Monster
wrote:

Look out evil doers! Jeff is coming after you! ?(•?•)?

[8~{} Uncle Deplorable Monster

Hornswoggle. The man is honorable. Tried an tested. Democrats need to
know the true racist were their own party Dixiecrats.

Yeahbut. He's for asset forfeiture. It turns cops into a
combination of accusers and judges. Cops are humans not angels. The
profit motive can enter into the process.

On Wednesday, February 8, 2017 at 7:44:31 PM UTC-6, Dean Hoffman wrote:
On 2/8/17 7:28 PM, Oren wrote:
On Wed, 8 Feb 2017 16:27:50 -0800 (PST), Uncle Monster
wrote:

Look out evil doers! Jeff is coming after you! ?(€¢?€¢)?

[8~{} Uncle Deplorable Monster

Hornswoggle. The man is honorable. Tried an tested. Democrats need to
know the true racist were their own party Dixiecrats.

Yeahbut. He's for asset forfeiture. It turns cops into a
combination of accusers and judges. Cops are humans not angels. The
profit motive can enter into the process.

If you don't like the law, contact you congressman and get it changed. You can always get together with like minded citizens and start a grass(no pun)roots organization to fight against the abuse of asset forfeiture laws. A modification of those laws could be that law enforcement agencies must pay back double for unjustly seized money and property. Seize a million, pay back two. Take the profit out of it. ヽ(ヅ)ノ

[8~{} Uncle Unjust Monster

On 02/08/2017 06:40 PM, philo wrote:
On 02/08/2017 06:27 PM, Uncle Monster wrote:
Look out evil doers! Jeff is coming after you! ヽ(€¢€¿€¢)ノ

[8~{} Uncle Deplorable Monster




Wow that was a surprise.

Speaking about politics here is one thing I have been wondering about.

Before I could do contract work in a nuclear power plant I had to pass a
comprehensive psychological test.

Why isn't this needed before a candidate can even run for office.
How could anyone possibly object? I have a feeling most elected
officials should be held to the same standards some poor slob like me
had to conform to.

Nancy Pelosi could use one if she still thinks she's fighting with Bush.
That one even woke Waters up and she's not the sharpest knife in the drawer.

On 2/8/17 8:44 PM, Dean Hoffman wrote:
On 2/8/17 7:28 PM, Oren wrote:
On Wed, 8 Feb 2017 16:27:50 -0800 (PST), Uncle Monster
wrote:

Look out evil doers! Jeff is coming after you! ?(•?•)?

[8~{} Uncle Deplorable Monster

Hornswoggle. The man is honorable. Tried an tested. Democrats need to
know the true racist were their own party Dixiecrats.

Yeahbut. He's for asset forfeiture. It turns cops into a
combination of accusers and judges. Cops are humans not angels. The
profit motive can enter into the process.
The cops don't make the decisions about forfeiture though. That comes
from the Prosecutors and US Attorneys. Same concerns, just little
higher up the food chain.

On Wed, 8 Feb 2017 19:40:50 -0600
philo wrote:

On 02/08/2017 06:27 PM, Uncle Monster wrote:
Look out evil doers! Jeff is coming after you! ヽ(€¢€¿€¢)ノ

[8~{} Uncle Deplorable Monster




Wow that was a surprise.

Speaking about politics here is one thing I have been wondering about.

Before I could do contract work in a nuclear power plant I had to
pass a comprehensive psychological test.

Why isn't this needed before a candidate can even run for office.
How could anyone possibly object? I have a feeling most elected
officials should be held to the same standards some poor slob like me
had to conform to.

All you liberals/socialist need one then deported.

On 02/08/2017 11:43 PM, rbowman wrote:
On 02/08/2017 06:40 PM, philo wrote:
On 02/08/2017 06:27 PM, Uncle Monster wrote:
Look out evil doers! Jeff is coming after you! ヽ(€¢€¿€¢)ノ

[8~{} Uncle Deplorable Monster




Wow that was a surprise.

Speaking about politics here is one thing I have been wondering about.

Before I could do contract work in a nuclear power plant I had to pass a
comprehensive psychological test.

Why isn't this needed before a candidate can even run for office.
How could anyone possibly object? I have a feeling most elected
officials should be held to the same standards some poor slob like me
had to conform to.

Nancy Pelosi could use one if she still thinks she's fighting with Bush.
That one even woke Waters up and she's not the sharpest knife in the
drawer.




I posted elsewhere and others were saying that of course once you become
president you automatically have top-secret security clearance but it
should be the other way around.

One should need to first qualify before one can run.
My guess is not only would Trump not have passed a few of the previous
presidents may not have either.

On Thu, 9 Feb 2017 08:07:45 -0600
philo wrote:

My guess is not only would Trump not have passed

Evidence?

On Thursday, February 9, 2017 at 9:12:01 AM UTC-5, burfordTjustice wrote:
On Thu, 9 Feb 2017 08:07:45 -0600
philo wrote:

My guess is not only would Trump not have passed

Evidence?

Polygraph. Of course, if Trump really is a sociopath,
a poly might not be conclusive.

Cindy Hamilton

On Thu, 9 Feb 2017 06:22:32 -0800 (PST)
Cindy Hamilton wrote:

On Thursday, February 9, 2017 at 9:12:01 AM UTC-5, burfordTjustice
wrote:
On Thu, 9 Feb 2017 08:07:45 -0600
philo wrote:

My guess is not only would Trump not have passed

Evidence?

Polygraph. Of course, if Trump really is a sociopath,
a poly might not be conclusive.

Cindy Hamilton

what polygraph did he take?
Your answer makes no sense to the question.


Then complete:
How about you?
You agree?
How many abortions
have you had?
You want taxpayers to pay for
free wheeling sex of others tell us about you.

We know you are a closet racist for not taking in
illegals to feed, shelter and defend them

Cecile Richards Urges Women To Boast About Their Abortions


http://dailycaller.com/2017/02/08/ce...eir-abortions/

On Thursday, February 9, 2017 at 9:31:53 AM UTC-5, burfordTjustice wrote:
On Thu, 9 Feb 2017 06:22:32 -0800 (PST)
Cindy Hamilton wrote:

On Thursday, February 9, 2017 at 9:12:01 AM UTC-5, burfordTjustice
wrote:
On Thu, 9 Feb 2017 08:07:45 -0600
philo wrote:

My guess is not only would Trump not have passed

Evidence?

Polygraph. Of course, if Trump really is a sociopath,
a poly might not be conclusive.

Cindy Hamilton

what polygraph did he take?
Your answer makes no sense to the question.

If he had a "top secret" security clearance prior to
being sworn in as president, he would have had to take
a polygraph test to obtain that clearance. I believe he
would have failed.

Since the President has no security clearance, yet
is able to view any classified document, the question
is moot.

Cindy Hamilton

burfordTjustice wrote:

On Thu, 9 Feb 2017 08:07:45 -0600
philo wrote:

My guess is not only would Trump not have passed

Evidence?

Isn'i it obvious that Donald Trump is not as good a security risk as
Edward Snowden, Bradley Manning, Jonathan Pollard, John Walker, Alger
Hiss, or Klaus Fuchs?

Cindy Hamilton wrote:

If he had a "top secret" security clearance prior to
being sworn in as president, he would have had to take
a polygraph test to obtain that clearance. I believe he
would have failed.

Unlike the Clintons, who really are sociopaths?

On 2/9/2017 10:01 AM, Neill Massello wrote:
burfordTjustice wrote:

On Thu, 9 Feb 2017 08:07:45 -0600
philo wrote:

My guess is not only would Trump not have passed

Evidence?

Isn'i it obvious that Donald Trump is not as good a security risk as
Edward Snowden, Bradley Manning, Jonathan Pollard, John Walker, Alger
Hiss, or Klaus Fuchs?


The left is becoming unhinged.
We should rejoice

On 2/9/2017 10:04 AM, Neill Massello wrote:
Cindy Hamilton wrote:

If he had a "top secret" security clearance prior to
being sworn in as president, he would have had to take
a polygraph test to obtain that clearance. I believe he
would have failed.

Unlike the Clintons, who really are sociopaths?

Cindy is the ng Joy Behar.

On Thu, 9 Feb 2017 07:35:45 -0500, "Kurt V. Ullman"
wrote:

On 2/8/17 8:44 PM, Dean Hoffman wrote:
On 2/8/17 7:28 PM, Oren wrote:
On Wed, 8 Feb 2017 16:27:50 -0800 (PST), Uncle Monster
wrote:

Look out evil doers! Jeff is coming after you! ?(€¢?€¢)?

[8~{} Uncle Deplorable Monster

Hornswoggle. The man is honorable. Tried an tested. Democrats need to
know the true racist were their own party Dixiecrats.

Yeahbut. He's for asset forfeiture. It turns cops into a
combination of accusers and judges. Cops are humans not angels. The
profit motive can enter into the process.
The cops don't make the decisions about forfeiture though. That comes
from the Prosecutors and US Attorneys. Same concerns, just little
higher up the food chain.

The cop makes the decision on the confiscation. It is the DA that
decides they can keep it. The whole thing is a scam tho and makes cops
little different than highway robbers. They are armed men who stop you
on the road and take your stuff at gunpoint, in many cases, never
proving that you did anything wrong except being there with something
they wanted, like a lot of money.

On Thursday, February 9, 2017 at 9:05:47 AM UTC-6, Frank wrote:
On 2/9/2017 10:01 AM, Neill Massello wrote:
burfordTjustice wrote:

On Thu, 9 Feb 2017 08:07:45 -0600
philo wrote:

My guess is not only would Trump not have passed

Evidence?

Isn'i it obvious that Donald Trump is not as good a security risk as
Edward Snowden, Bradley Manning, Jonathan Pollard, John Walker, Alger
Hiss, or Klaus Fuchs?

The left is becoming unhinged.
We should rejoice

It's so entertaining to see the arrogant *******s and bitches go bonkers and howl about how unfair the system is that allowed them to lose. I'm really enjoying the show. ヽ(€¢€¿€¢)ノ

[8~{} Uncle Deplorable Monster

On Thu, 9 Feb 2017 06:22:32 -0800 (PST)
Cindy Hamilton wrote:

From: Cindy Hamilton




My guess is not only would Trump not have passed

Evidence?

Polygraph. Of course, if Trump really is a sociopath,
a poly might not be conclusive.

Cindy Hamilton

what polygraph did he take?
Your answer makes no sense to the question.


Then complete:
How about you?
You agree?
How many abortions
have you had?
You want taxpayers to pay for
free wheeling sex of others tell us about you.

We know you are a closet racist for not taking in
illegals to feed, shelter and defend them

Cecile Richards Urges Women To Boast About Their Abortions


http://dailycaller.com/2017/02/08/ce...eir-abortions/

On 2/9/17 10:38 AM, wrote:
O

The cop makes the decision on the confiscation. It is the DA that
decides they can keep it. The whole thing is a scam tho and makes cops
little different than highway robbers. They are armed men who stop you
on the road and take your stuff at gunpoint, in many cases, never
proving that you did anything wrong except being there with something
they wanted, like a lot of money.

Nope. The cop makes the decision to take it into evidence for use at
trial. Same as a gun, or chewing gum, or anything else at the crime
scene. The prosecutor makes the determinaton on what comes next. Civil
forfeiture requires court filings and that isn't something the cop does.
Also a lot of the big buck things, bank accounts, houses, etc. are
seized away from the cops anyway.

On Thu, 9 Feb 2017 10:07:08 -0500, Frank "frank wrote:

On 2/9/2017 10:04 AM, Neill Massello wrote:
Cindy Hamilton wrote:

If he had a "top secret" security clearance prior to
being sworn in as president, he would have had to take
a polygraph test to obtain that clearance. I believe he
would have failed.

Unlike the Clintons, who really are sociopaths?

Cindy is the ng Joy Behar.

+1

On Wednesday, February 8, 2017 at 8:44:31 PM UTC-5, Dean Hoffman wrote:
On 2/8/17 7:28 PM, Oren wrote:
On Wed, 8 Feb 2017 16:27:50 -0800 (PST), Uncle Monster
wrote:

Look out evil doers! Jeff is coming after you! ?(€¢?€¢)?

[8~{} Uncle Deplorable Monster

Hornswoggle. The man is honorable. Tried an tested. Democrats need to
know the true racist were their own party Dixiecrats.

Yeahbut. He's for asset forfeiture. It turns cops into a
combination of accusers and judges. Cops are humans not angels. The
profit motive can enter into the process.

Agree with you on asset forfeiture. It's being abused right now.
Incredibly, the govt can take your property, without proving any crime,
and it's up to you to sue them, prevail in court, to get your property
back. And of course the legal fees usually can exceed the value of
the property, making it a lost cause.

On Thu, 9 Feb 2017 12:00:52 -0500, "Kurt V. Ullman"
wrote:

On 2/9/17 10:38 AM, wrote:
O

The cop makes the decision on the confiscation. It is the DA that
decides they can keep it. The whole thing is a scam tho and makes cops
little different than highway robbers. They are armed men who stop you
on the road and take your stuff at gunpoint, in many cases, never
proving that you did anything wrong except being there with something
they wanted, like a lot of money.

Nope. The cop makes the decision to take it into evidence for use at
trial. Same as a gun, or chewing gum, or anything else at the crime
scene. The prosecutor makes the determinaton on what comes next. Civil
forfeiture requires court filings and that isn't something the cop does.
Also a lot of the big buck things, bank accounts, houses, etc. are
seized away from the cops anyway.

A distinction without a difference. It is the cop that decides that
you have "too much money" or whatever.
The thing than makes this border on criminal is that they do not need
to actually charge a crime to take your property. The legal excuse is
that the property was the criminal and property does not have rights
so they can take it is a rubber stamp civil process where the human
victim is not even present to present a defense.
.... And the cops DO get to keep most of the property., That is how
they get Corvette cop cars and 36' Yellow Fin and Contender patrol
boats.
The victim needs to start another proceeding to try to get his stuff
back and these are seldom successful. The government has time on their
side and the best lawyers your tax money can buy.

On Wednesday, February 8, 2017 at 8:40:55 PM UTC-5, philo wrote:
On 02/08/2017 06:27 PM, Uncle Monster wrote:
Look out evil doers! Jeff is coming after you! ヽ(€¢€¿€¢)ノ

[8~{} Uncle Deplorable Monster




Wow that was a surprise.

Speaking about politics here is one thing I have been wondering about.

Before I could do contract work in a nuclear power plant I had to pass a
comprehensive psychological test.

Why isn't this needed before a candidate can even run for office.
How could anyone possibly object? I have a feeling most elected
officials should be held to the same standards some poor slob like me
had to conform to.

SAdly, no test was needed with Trump. It was clear throughout the campaign
that he was not right in the head, but the Trumpets just didn't care if
the president was nuts.

On Thursday, February 9, 2017 at 9:12:01 AM UTC-5, burfordTjustice wrote:
On Thu, 9 Feb 2017 08:07:45 -0600
philo wrote:

My guess is not only would Trump not have passed

Evidence?

Must you ask?
How about the fact that Trump insists that he saw things that never
happened? That he participated in once in a lifetime type meetings,
that no one could get wrong, but they too never happened?
He says he saw thousands and thousands of Arabs celebrating in Jersey
City on 9/11. Fully vetted, never happened. He claims he saw bodies
fall from WTC from his apartment. The apartment is 5 miles away and
it would have been impossible. He claims he got to know Putin when they
did 60 Minutes at the same time. "We were stablemates". It never
happened, they were at different times, one in Moscow, the other taped
in NYC.

Then we have the bizarre, childlike tweeting, the self-admitted
germaphobia, the inability to ever admit that he's made a mistake.

Need I go on? When is enough, enough?

On Thursday, February 9, 2017 at 12:50:59 PM UTC-5, wrote:
On Thu, 9 Feb 2017 12:00:52 -0500, "Kurt V. Ullman"
wrote:

On 2/9/17 10:38 AM, wrote:
O

The cop makes the decision on the confiscation. It is the DA that
decides they can keep it. The whole thing is a scam tho and makes cops
little different than highway robbers. They are armed men who stop you
on the road and take your stuff at gunpoint, in many cases, never
proving that you did anything wrong except being there with something
they wanted, like a lot of money.

Nope. The cop makes the decision to take it into evidence for use at
trial. Same as a gun, or chewing gum, or anything else at the crime
scene. The prosecutor makes the determinaton on what comes next. Civil
forfeiture requires court filings and that isn't something the cop does.
Also a lot of the big buck things, bank accounts, houses, etc. are
seized away from the cops anyway.

A distinction without a difference. It is the cop that decides that
you have "too much money" or whatever.
The thing than makes this border on criminal is that they do not need
to actually charge a crime to take your property. The legal excuse is
that the property was the criminal and property does not have rights
so they can take it is a rubber stamp civil process where the human
victim is not even present to present a defense.
... And the cops DO get to keep most of the property., That is how
they get Corvette cop cars and 36' Yellow Fin and Contender patrol
boats.
The victim needs to start another proceeding to try to get his stuff
back and these are seldom successful. The government has time on their
side and the best lawyers your tax money can buy.

+1

The govt lawyers can argue forever, the taxpayers are paying for them.
The poor slob, he has to pay for his own lawyers, and even if he wins,
after the cost, it may not be worth it. If he loses, he's lost twice.

On 02/09/2017 11:50 AM, trader_4 wrote:
On Wednesday, February 8, 2017 at 8:40:55 PM UTC-5, philo wrote:
On 02/08/2017 06:27 PM, Uncle Monster wrote:
Look out evil doers! Jeff is coming after you! ヽ(€¢€¿€¢)ノ

[8~{} Uncle Deplorable Monster




Wow that was a surprise.

Speaking about politics here is one thing I have been wondering about.

Before I could do contract work in a nuclear power plant I had to pass a
comprehensive psychological test.

Why isn't this needed before a candidate can even run for office.
How could anyone possibly object? I have a feeling most elected
officials should be held to the same standards some poor slob like me
had to conform to.

SAdly, no test was needed with Trump. It was clear throughout the campaign
that he was not right in the head, but the Trumpets just didn't care if
the president was nuts.




Like I said, why does Philo the battery engineer need to psychological
test but not a potential presidential candidate...is my job more
important that that of president? I don't thing so.

On Thu, 9 Feb 2017 09:58:00 -0800 (PST), trader_4
wrote:

Need I go on? When is enough, enough?

No you don't have to go on. Your Trumpphobia and TDS (Trump
Derangement Syndrome) is already enough. At least clear to me, anyway.

Paraphrasing Joe Biden, "It is over."

Trump is living in your head rent free :-)

On 02/09/2017 01:42 PM, Oren wrote:
On Thu, 9 Feb 2017 09:58:00 -0800 (PST), trader_4
wrote:

Need I go on? When is enough, enough?

No you don't have to go on. Your Trumpphobia and TDS (Trump
Derangement Syndrome) is already enough. At least clear to me, anyway.

Paraphrasing Joe Biden, "It is over."

Trump is living in your head rent free :-)




First off I am a Democrat but do not at all consider myself a liberal.

It was the liberals who put Trump in office. He got just under 1/3 of
the votes from eligible votes but the liberals who voted protest votes
(independent) or holier than thou did not vote at all accounted for
slightly more than 1/3 of the tally.

At least those who voted for Trump or Clinton made a ****ing decision.

I used to follow the liberal press but it's useless...it was 100% pro
Clinton and 100% pro Trump.

The conservative press right from the start although hugely supportive
of Trump at least had the honesty to at least voice a small amount of
concern. After the election the conservative press stepped it up a bit
and the breakdown was 5% critical.

My last tally has shown the conservative press publishing more and more
concerns with Trump...on some days 20% of the stories voice these concerns.


VIZ: the travel ban? Let's face it , who in their right mind would be
against screening... the criticism is with Trump's extremely sloppy
handling of the wording.

I kind of roared with laughter when yesterday the National Review
published an ostensibly pro-Trump story about DeVos. It said , why are
the democrats so against her, it's not as if she were Bannon.

Perhaps most of all the conservative press views Bannon in a poor light
and Trump's continual Tweets which are nothing but cry baby rhetoric.

Bottom line : I have not seen the conservative press so critical of any
Republican president this early in the term, this is a sure sign of failure.

On Thu, 9 Feb 2017 10:01:10 -0800 (PST), trader_4
wrote:

On Thursday, February 9, 2017 at 12:50:59 PM UTC-5, wrote:
On Thu, 9 Feb 2017 12:00:52 -0500, "Kurt V. Ullman"
wrote:

On 2/9/17 10:38 AM, wrote:
O

The cop makes the decision on the confiscation. It is the DA that
decides they can keep it. The whole thing is a scam tho and makes cops
little different than highway robbers. They are armed men who stop you
on the road and take your stuff at gunpoint, in many cases, never
proving that you did anything wrong except being there with something
they wanted, like a lot of money.

Nope. The cop makes the decision to take it into evidence for use at
trial. Same as a gun, or chewing gum, or anything else at the crime
scene. The prosecutor makes the determinaton on what comes next. Civil
forfeiture requires court filings and that isn't something the cop does.
Also a lot of the big buck things, bank accounts, houses, etc. are
seized away from the cops anyway.

A distinction without a difference. It is the cop that decides that
you have "too much money" or whatever.
The thing than makes this border on criminal is that they do not need
to actually charge a crime to take your property. The legal excuse is
that the property was the criminal and property does not have rights
so they can take it is a rubber stamp civil process where the human
victim is not even present to present a defense.
... And the cops DO get to keep most of the property., That is how
they get Corvette cop cars and 36' Yellow Fin and Contender patrol
boats.
The victim needs to start another proceeding to try to get his stuff
back and these are seldom successful. The government has time on their
side and the best lawyers your tax money can buy.

+1

The govt lawyers can argue forever, the taxpayers are paying for them.
The poor slob, he has to pay for his own lawyers, and even if he wins,
after the cost, it may not be worth it. If he loses, he's lost twice.

A case here in Las Vegas, a detective used faulty/exaggerated
"probable cause" for a warrant. They confiscated all the legal
medical marijuana, legal growing equipment, etc. IIRC a lawyer took
the case Pro Bono. The woman won suing the LVMPD. Getting a financial
win from the county.

On Wed, 8 Feb 2017 19:40:50 -0600, philo wrote:

On 02/08/2017 06:27 PM, Uncle Monster wrote:
Look out evil doers! Jeff is coming after you! ?(•?•)?

[8~{} Uncle Deplorable Monster




Wow that was a surprise.

Speaking about politics here is one thing I have been wondering about.

Before I could do contract work in a nuclear power plant I had to pass a
comprehensive psychological test.

Why isn't this needed before a candidate can even run for office.
How could anyone possibly object? I have a feeling most elected
officials should be held to the same standards some poor slob like me
had to conform to.

When I got a federal job, there was a psychologist on the three member
interview board. I was hired and worked about 11 months before the FBI
done my full field background investigation. There was a long backlog
back in the late '70's. After that, I went through FBI investigations
every five years until I retired at age 50. My last year I was
investigated for criminal charges related to destruction of government
computers by the Office of Inspector General. (It was my job and well
documented via inventory records) and read my Miranda rights. I waved
them and spanked both of the two investigators from OIG.

"Have a nice retirement" was their parting words

On Thu, 9 Feb 2017 09:58:00 -0800 (PST)
trader_4 wrote:

On Thursday, February 9, 2017 at 9:12:01 AM UTC-5, burfordTjustice
wrote:
On Thu, 9 Feb 2017 08:07:45 -0600
philo wrote:

My guess is not only would Trump not have passed

Evidence?

Must you ask?
How about the fact that Trump insists that he saw things that never
happened? That he participated in once in a lifetime type meetings,
that no one could get wrong, but they too never happened?
He says he saw thousands and thousands of Arabs celebrating in Jersey
City on 9/11. Fully vetted, never happened. He claims he saw bodies
fall from WTC from his apartment. The apartment is 5 miles away and
it would have been impossible. He claims he got to know Putin when
they did 60 Minutes at the same time. "We were stablemates". It
never happened, they were at different times, one in Moscow, the
other taped in NYC.

Then we have the bizarre, childlike tweeting, the self-admitted
germaphobia, the inability to ever admit that he's made a mistake.

Need I go on? When is enough, enough?

Your opinion not evidence.

On Thu, 9 Feb 2017 12:06:15 -0600
philo wrote:

The one who is complaining is Trump...he still says there was
election fraud even though he won.

and there was. because he won does not make the fraud ok.
Time to put some people in prison..not jail prison.

You democrats/liberals are all ok with lying/fraud and deceit as
long as it is going for you.

On Thu, 9 Feb 2017 12:06:15 -0600, philo wrote:

The one who is complaining is Trump...he still says there was election
fraud even though he won.

That may present the first opportunity in the history of the republic
that anyone seriously investigated voter fraud. Winners usually do not
want to call into question the validity of the election that they won.
It would really be ironic if Trump proved fraud gave him the win in
Florida and Pennsylvania and he did not even get the EC.

On 2/9/2017 3:48 PM, burfordTjustice wrote:
On Thu, 9 Feb 2017 12:06:15 -0600
philo wrote:

The one who is complaining is Trump...he still says there was
election fraud even though he won.
and there was. because he won does not make the fraud ok.
Time to put some people in prison..not jail prison.

You democrats/liberals are all ok with lying/fraud and deceit as
long as it is going for you.

Yup! Show me a welfare recipient, I'll show you a lying cheating lazy liberal democrat. Democrats are a drain on society.

On 02/09/2017 03:22 PM, wrote:
On Thu, 9 Feb 2017 12:06:15 -0600, philo wrote:

The one who is complaining is Trump...he still says there was election
fraud even though he won.

That may present the first opportunity in the history of the republic
that anyone seriously investigated voter fraud. Winners usually do not
want to call into question the validity of the election that they won.
It would really be ironic if Trump proved fraud gave him the win in
Florida and Pennsylvania and he did not even get the EC.




Agreed. I say that if you won...shut the **** up.

I have never seen such stupidity.

On Thu, 9 Feb 2017 19:43:25 -0600, philo wrote:

On 02/09/2017 03:22 PM, wrote:
On Thu, 9 Feb 2017 12:06:15 -0600, philo wrote:

The one who is complaining is Trump...he still says there was election
fraud even though he won.

That may present the first opportunity in the history of the republic
that anyone seriously investigated voter fraud. Winners usually do not
want to call into question the validity of the election that they won.
It would really be ironic if Trump proved fraud gave him the win in
Florida and Pennsylvania and he did not even get the EC.




Agreed. I say that if you won...shut the **** up.

I have never seen such stupidity.

Look in a mirror.

On Thu, 09 Feb 2017 19:55:34 -0600, Gordon Shumway
wrote:

I have never seen such stupidity.

Look in a mirror.

Make America great again. Use mirrors made in Wisconsin.

On 02/09/2017 08:00 PM, Oren wrote:


I have never seen such stupidity.

Look in a mirror.

Make America great again. Use mirrors made in Wisconsin.




Hey our Gov. Walker made the news and he proposes to reduce tuition.

Though that is probably a good idea it seems so unlike him...then I
realized he is running for re-election.

I will absolutely give him credit for one thing even though he did not
create the number of jobs he promised...he has held the line on property
taxes...and doggone it how can one complain about that?