BSM1
What? Me worry?
You still didn't answer my question. No one is arguing that these women did not receive money, but where is the proof of illegality, let alone an impeachable offense?
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Should Trump
- Thread starter Spirit of Light
- Start date
You still didn't answer my question. No one is arguing that these women did not receive money, but where is the proof of illegality, let alone an impeachable offense?
Ignoring the point I made.
Milton Platt
Well-Known Member
I am not sure he has committed an impeachable offence yet. Personally I loathe the man, but I believe in
I would say it’s in the gray area......the question is whether the payments to the women he slept with outside his marriage were to protect his campaign, or they were to keep his wife and family from finding out. In the first case, it would be considered an unreported campaign contribution, and in the other, merely a personal matter. I doubt it will ever be sorted out, because it could have been either, or both.
Milton Platt
Well-Known Member
I would say it’s in the gray area......the question is whether the payments to the women he slept with outside his marriage were to protect his campaign, or they were to keep his wife and family from finding out. In the first case, it would be considered an unreported campaign contribution, and in the other, merely a personal matter. I doubt it will ever be sorted out, because it could have been either, or both.
BSM1
What? Me worry?
Or neither? Just the going rate?
Milton Platt
Well-Known Member
LOL. It isn’t neither, I don’t think. That’s a rather high rate.....but how would I know?
Now you’re just spouting nonsense. I know evidence inside and out. You suggested the investigation was evidence.
I just took another quiz posted here on RF last week.
Trump’s policies contribute to the economic success and safety’s of my family.
Walls are not ineffective. Ask Acosta. Lol
Seriously? It’s all over the internet.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
No, I didn't. Perhaps you have poor reading comprehension or you conflated a post of mine with that of another.
You had no point.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Now you are merely confirming your ignorance. What does Acosta have to do with this?
And your knowledge of economics appears to be woefully lacking.
It’s implied in #22.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Nope, try again.
Acosta proved the wall works.
So is it your strategy to tell whoever you disagree with that they don’t know X?
So far you’ve claimed I don’t know evidence or economics. I know both extremely well. And how would you know whether Trump’s policies are benefit to g my family. Do you know me? Do you know my income, my investments, etc? Of course not.
Seriously. You have renounced the right to go without.
You can pretend. Fine with me.
Ok. I’ll do your work for you. Here is a link to one of many articles: Jim Acosta owns himself, accidentally proves walls work -
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
And you may get some temporary gain from Trump's policies, that does not mean that he helps your family.
Those that support the wall tend to be racists since it would be largely ineffective for what it sets out to do. First off most drugs would not be stopped by a wall:
How heroin and fentanyl get into Philadelphia — and why a border wall likely wouldn’t stop them
It would slow down illegal immigration, but already the largest source of illegal immigrants are those that overstay visits, not those that sneak across the southern border.
When people explain how you are wrong you do not tend to listen. At that point all that is required to point out the obvious.
