For his part, Clapper first stood by his comments. On June 6, he told the National Journal, "What I said was, the NSA does not voyeuristically pore through U.S. citizens' emails. I stand by that," Clapper said.

Your first link does not say he perjured himself. Read it again Kaplony.

(03-03-2018 08:46 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  I remain happy with my vote. I also support the tariffs.

I'm hoping the tariffs are part of playing the game to get other countries to be more equitable trading partners. For it to be a bargaining chip, they have to believe it will be done.......

(03-03-2018 09:06 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  For his part, Clapper first stood by his comments. On June 6, he told the National Journal, "What I said was, the NSA does not voyeuristically pore through U.S. citizens' emails. I stand by that," Clapper said.

Your first link does not say he perjured himself. Read it again Kaplony.

Educate yourself Mach.

https://www.cnbc.com/2016/07/07/what-hap...gress.html

Quote: Q: What are the rules about lying to Congress?

A: Glad you asked. If you are testifying in front of Congress sometime soon, and are wondering how far you can bend the truth, there are a two key statutes governing perjury you need to be aware of: U.S. Code sections 1621 and 1001 of Title 18.

Section 1621 covers general perjury, and stipulates that anyone who "willfully and contrary to such oath states or subscribes any material matter which he does not believe to be true" is guilty of perjury and shall be fined or imprisoned up to five years, or both. Section 1001 covers false statements more generally, without requiring an oath. The section stipulates that "whoever, in any matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the government of the United States, knowingly and willfully" falsifies or conceals information, including before a congressional committee's inquiry, may also be fined or imprisoned up to five years.

Q: What potential punishment would someone who lied to Congress face?

A: If you paid attention during the last section, you may have read that general perjury comes with a maximum five-year prison sentence and potential fine. The same basically goes for not telling the truth to Congress, even without an oath. However, if the lie under Section 1001 involves terrorism, the maximum prison sentence rises to eight years.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1621

Quote:18 U.S. Code § 1621 - Perjury generally

Whoever—
(1) having taken an oath before a competent tribunal, officer, or person, in any case in which a law of the United States authorizes an oath to be administered, that he will testify, declare, depose, or certify truly, or that any written testimony, declaration, deposition, or certificate by him subscribed, is true, willfully and contrary to such oath states or subscribes any material matter which he does not believe to be true; or

(2) in any declaration, certificate, verification, or statement under penalty of perjury as permitted under section 1746 of title 28, United States Code, willfully subscribes as true any material matter which he does not believe to be true;

is guilty of perjury and shall, except as otherwise expressly provided by law, be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both. This section is applicable whether the statement or subscription is made within or without the United States.

It doesn't matter what the article does or doesn't say, the law is the law. Brennan perjured himself three separate times while testifying before Congress.

(03-03-2018 08:25 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  So I asked for links that Brennan is a perjurer and I get an opinion piece! You (I want to say something sarcastic and belittling but I’m under probation) “fine” folk do understand the difference between opinion and fact? Yes? Let me give you a clue. If you cite a link that is under the “opinion” section you need to look further.

Opinions are not facts folks.

The facts are stated in that opinion piece. That Brennan has perjured himself is well known by the right and the left. You have the information. If you want a perfect article, you are perfectly free to search yourself. Someone else pointed out a couple of other times Brennan perjured himself. You are free to search that. Its well known and has been discussed on here before. I'm pretty sure there have been threads calling for him to be prosecuted.

You get the links and information and then just deny it. You pick a pretty pathetic figure to tie yourself to. He's the most indefensible character of the whole sorry bunch, with the possible exception of the FBI agent sending hundreds of e-mails to his mistress while protecting HRC and criticizing DJT.

(03-03-2018 08:32 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  The bastions of fascism can be found on Wall Street. Main Street, which used to be lined with local independent businesses, are now lined with predatory, transnational giants. And along the Potomac, we find politicians who are more than happy to do the bidding of their corporate overlords. We are no longer a government of the people. Our politicians are bought and paid for by corporate interests.

Today in America, we are dangerously close to seeing Wallace’s fascistic, dystopic America come into fruition. We see the traces of it everywhere.

Unfortunately, too many Americans just don’t have a word to define what’s happening. But when corporations control government. The word for it is Fascism.

I agree that the US has never come closer to fascism than under the corporate controlled Obama administration and Clinton Secretary of State office with the SS types Brennan, Clapper and Comey running our security services.

And you can't forget the "black-shirts" sent out to disrupt the opposition and incite violence. Hitler's guys wore brown. Hillary's anti-fa wore black.

Bullet, I agree 100% with you. I actually believed that Oblunder would remain in power some how but I guess our country is still too strong for that to happen. Who knows what's in store after Trump leaves and perhaps the Demons take control of our country again. God forbid that happening ever.

There is no doubt that Brennan and Clinton (either of them, take your pick) are part of a group of Democrats who believe in lying when the truth would work so much better. That said, of the things mentioned in the thread title, I have zero problem with anyone making the assertion that Trump is all of those things and only the most willfully blind would suggest otherwise.

Is he unstable? Certainly. Anyone who ascends to the highest elective office in the land, but finds it more valuable to spend his time in absurd twitter wars is unstable. Anyone who resides in the White House who makes policy statements and decisions about serious issues without considering the effects of his actions on the people he is supposed to serve is either unstable or intent on his legacy being one of destruction. There is no argument that he is inexperienced. He had never held elective office and that was part of his populist appeal (don't call it conservative). His inexperience has been on display in his dealing with his staffing appointments, his foreign policy decisions and his lack of diplomatic skill. What may have been attractive to many voters has proven to be a national embarrassment IMO.

I can't say Trump has been unethical in the traditional sense. I know of nothing that he has done that could be considered a legal wrongdoing. When Obama was in office, I was very critical of his seemingly constant vacations and golf trips. It would be wrong of me not to be equally disturbed by the frequency of Trump's trips to his resort for golf. I do think it is unethical to pretend to be something you are not and I believe Trump is a Democrat dressed up like a Republican.

History will judge whether or not he was inept, but I think he's got a good start on it. Throw out anything and everything to do with Russia and you are still left with a narcissist more concerned with his image than suffering US citizens. You are left with a guy that much more easily talks about a show or an actor's TV ratings and scoring points on Twitter than he attempts to use his pulpit to educate our citizens about the nuances of his policy decisions. I don't need a sound bite in chief; I need a serious individual who takes his responsibility seriously and I haven't seen any of that in our current president.

I saw a quote I like, "Trump's opponents take him literally but not seriously. Hi s supporters take him seriously but not literally."

(03-04-2018 12:27 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I saw a quote I like, "Trump's opponents take him literally but not seriously. Hi s supporters take him seriously but not literally."

It's a cute phrase, but not accurate. As private citizen Trump, we have the luxury to take him seriously or not. As President Trump, he has enormous power to impact the lives of real people. So whether it's governmental leaders around the world, coal miners, steel workers, farmers, auto workers or just ordinary families, Trump is taken seriously. Individuals may think he's a joke, but I assure you that even they take the office seriously and therefore the man who occupies that office.

And only 7 more years.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

(03-04-2018 12:44 AM)Jjoey52 Wrote:  And only 7 more years.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

You may be right, but indicators suggest that may not be the case. Direction of the country polls strongly suggest that the majority of Americans don't care for the direction we are going. The best figures for Trump was 39% last March.

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls...y-902.html

His job performance and personal approval numbers have been consistently poor and given his propensity to find new groups of people to offend, I don't see those numbers improving significantly.

Before someone goes off on a rant about how poor the polls were prior to the 2016 election, I agree that they were way off the mark. He had no job performance at that time and I have seen a lot of Trump supporters fall away since he has taken office. Some of the people I knew that were 100% for him over HRC aren't likely to vote for him again.

(03-04-2018 01:02 AM)Zombiewoof Wrote:  

(03-04-2018 12:44 AM)Jjoey52 Wrote:  And only 7 more years.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

You may be right, but indicators suggest that may not be the case. Direction of the country polls strongly suggest that the majority of Americans don't care for the direction we are going. The best figures for Trump was 39% last March.

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls...y-902.html

His job performance and personal approval numbers have been consistently poor and given his propensity to find new groups of people to offend, I don't see those numbers improving significantly.

Before someone goes off on a rant about how poor the polls were prior to the 2016 election, I agree that they were way off the mark. He had no job performance at that time and I have seen a lot of Trump supporters fall away since he has taken office. Some of the people I knew that were 100% for him over HRC aren't likely to vote for him again.

Thats no doubt true. But that's 3 years from the election where Trump is the only target to shoot at. In 3 years, if the economy is still doing nicely, the tax cut is universally popular, and we are seeing jobs coming back to the US from overseas--Trump may be looked at differently.

Additionally, dont forget, the Democrats are going to have a primary. Once some of those folks see the radical left crazy nut job that finally is able to win the Dem primary by being more anti-middle class than every other democrat--well---those folks might be right back in the Trump camp. Thats how I got there. I didnt want Hillary picking the next Supreme Court Justice. Trump was more conservative than Hillary. lol....Its not like there were alot of choices on the menu.

(03-04-2018 01:10 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(03-04-2018 01:02 AM)Zombiewoof Wrote:  

(03-04-2018 12:44 AM)Jjoey52 Wrote:  And only 7 more years.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

You may be right, but indicators suggest that may not be the case. Direction of the country polls strongly suggest that the majority of Americans don't care for the direction we are going. The best figures for Trump was 39% last March.

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls...y-902.html

His job performance and personal approval numbers have been consistently poor and given his propensity to find new groups of people to offend, I don't see those numbers improving significantly.

Before someone goes off on a rant about how poor the polls were prior to the 2016 election, I agree that they were way off the mark. He had no job performance at that time and I have seen a lot of Trump supporters fall away since he has taken office. Some of the people I knew that were 100% for him over HRC aren't likely to vote for him again.

Thats no doubt true. But that's 3 years from the election where Trump is the only target to shoot at. In 3 years, if the economy is still doing nicely, the tax cut is universally popular, and we are seeing jobs coming back to the US from overseas--Trump may be looked at differently.

Additionally, dont forget, the Democrats are going to have a primary. Once some of those folks see the radical left crazy nut job that finally is able to win the Dem primary by being more anti-middle class than every other democrat--well---those folks might be right back in the Trump camp. Thats how I got there. I didnt want Hillary picking the next Supreme Court Justice. Trump was more conservative than Hillary. lol....Its not like there were alot of choices on the menu.

That could absolutely happen. In my little corner of Mississippi, there were a lot of hardcore Trump supporters, but possibly just as many who didn't want Hillary (or Bernie) within a million miles of the White House. Hillary is simply hated around here. If the Democrats pick a candidate who appeals to their far left base, they will have zero chance of picking up votes around here, no matter how much traction Trump has lost here. On the other hand, Trump gets us in another war, we start hemorrhaging jobs or they nominate someone who at least seems reasonable (maybe a Jim Webb type), then Trump would have no shot.

(03-04-2018 01:46 AM)Zombiewoof Wrote:  

(03-04-2018 01:10 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(03-04-2018 01:02 AM)Zombiewoof Wrote:  

(03-04-2018 12:44 AM)Jjoey52 Wrote:  And only 7 more years.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

You may be right, but indicators suggest that may not be the case. Direction of the country polls strongly suggest that the majority of Americans don't care for the direction we are going. The best figures for Trump was 39% last March.

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls...y-902.html

His job performance and personal approval numbers have been consistently poor and given his propensity to find new groups of people to offend, I don't see those numbers improving significantly.

Before someone goes off on a rant about how poor the polls were prior to the 2016 election, I agree that they were way off the mark. He had no job performance at that time and I have seen a lot of Trump supporters fall away since he has taken office. Some of the people I knew that were 100% for him over HRC aren't likely to vote for him again.

Thats no doubt true. But that's 3 years from the election where Trump is the only target to shoot at. In 3 years, if the economy is still doing nicely, the tax cut is universally popular, and we are seeing jobs coming back to the US from overseas--Trump may be looked at differently.

Additionally, dont forget, the Democrats are going to have a primary. Once some of those folks see the radical left crazy nut job that finally is able to win the Dem primary by being more anti-middle class than every other democrat--well---those folks might be right back in the Trump camp. Thats how I got there. I didnt want Hillary picking the next Supreme Court Justice. Trump was more conservative than Hillary. lol....Its not like there were alot of choices on the menu.

That could absolutely happen. In my little corner of Mississippi, there were a lot of hardcore Trump supporters, but possibly just as many who didn't want Hillary (or Bernie) within a million miles of the White House. Hillary is simply hated around here. If the Democrats pick a candidate who appeals to their far left base, they will have zero chance of picking up votes around here, no matter how much traction Trump has lost here. On the other hand, Trump gets us in another war, we start hemorrhaging jobs or they nominate someone who at least seems reasonable (maybe a Jim Webb type), then Trump would have no shot.

Maybe thats why I am like I am when it comes to Trump. He wasnt my guy in the primary--but he was better than Hillary. I picked him to get a conservative SC justice. I liked some of his ideas, but just as I expected, I knew the press would have a field day with his mouth.

Funny thing happned---I had little expectation that he'd actually get to follow through on the stuff I iiked in his speeches---but surprise---he actually kept his word for the most part.

I got my conservative SC justice in his first few months. He cut taxes. He created a more business friendly environment. He at least tired to get rid of Obamacare. He continues to move toward building the wall and he has worked to create trade deals that will give the American worker a fair shake. lol...and his mouth has also landed him in trouble--but I figured that would happen. Bottom line---I have been pleasantly surprised that he actually followed through with much of the part I liked about his campaign and actually got some of it implemented.

Right now--Im pleased. lol....But who knows what will happen next week. This time reminds me in some ways of Reagan. That was my first time voting for president. I was very excited to vote for RR and was equally happy to get rid of Jimmy Carter. I was young--and some thought I nuts to vote for Reagan. Many folks thought Reagan was a joke, an idiot, and some though him unfit for office. My guess is that Trump is much like Reagan in that he knows what needs to be done. What he lacks is Reagans charm and Regans's ability to poke fun at himself--something that ended up endearing him to the American people. In the end, I suspect Trump will end up being pretty good for the country (something that may even one day be a widely shared opinion)--despite that, he will probably never enjoy much over 50% popularity because of his personality.

(03-04-2018 01:58 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(03-04-2018 01:46 AM)Zombiewoof Wrote:  

(03-04-2018 01:10 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(03-04-2018 01:02 AM)Zombiewoof Wrote:  

(03-04-2018 12:44 AM)Jjoey52 Wrote:  And only 7 more years.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

You may be right, but indicators suggest that may not be the case. Direction of the country polls strongly suggest that the majority of Americans don't care for the direction we are going. The best figures for Trump was 39% last March.

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls...y-902.html

His job performance and personal approval numbers have been consistently poor and given his propensity to find new groups of people to offend, I don't see those numbers improving significantly.

Before someone goes off on a rant about how poor the polls were prior to the 2016 election, I agree that they were way off the mark. He had no job performance at that time and I have seen a lot of Trump supporters fall away since he has taken office. Some of the people I knew that were 100% for him over HRC aren't likely to vote for him again.

Thats no doubt true. But that's 3 years from the election where Trump is the only target to shoot at. In 3 years, if the economy is still doing nicely, the tax cut is universally popular, and we are seeing jobs coming back to the US from overseas--Trump may be looked at differently.

Additionally, dont forget, the Democrats are going to have a primary. Once some of those folks see the radical left crazy nut job that finally is able to win the Dem primary by being more anti-middle class than every other democrat--well---those folks might be right back in the Trump camp. Thats how I got there. I didnt want Hillary picking the next Supreme Court Justice. Trump was more conservative than Hillary. lol....Its not like there were alot of choices on the menu.

That could absolutely happen. In my little corner of Mississippi, there were a lot of hardcore Trump supporters, but possibly just as many who didn't want Hillary (or Bernie) within a million miles of the White House. Hillary is simply hated around here. If the Democrats pick a candidate who appeals to their far left base, they will have zero chance of picking up votes around here, no matter how much traction Trump has lost here. On the other hand, Trump gets us in another war, we start hemorrhaging jobs or they nominate someone who at least seems reasonable (maybe a Jim Webb type), then Trump would have no shot.

Maybe thats why I am like I am when it comes to Trump. He wasnt my guy in the primary--but he was better than Hillary. I picked him to get a conservative SC justice. I liked some of his ideas, but just as I expected, I knew the press would have a field day with his mouth.

Funny thing happned---I had little expectation that he'd actually get to follow through on the stuff I iiked in his speeches---but surprise---he actually kept his word for the most part.

I got my conservative SC justice in his first few months. He cut taxes. He created a more business friendly environment. He at least tired to get rid of Obamacare. He continues to move toward building the wall and he has worked to create trade deals that will give the American worker a fair shake. lol...and his mouth has also landed him in trouble--but I figured that would happen. Bottom line---I have been pleasantly surprised that he actually followed through with much of the part I liked about his campaign and actually got some of it implemented.

Right now--Im pleased. lol....But who knows what will happen next week. This time reminds me in some ways of Reagan. That was my first time voting for president. I was very excited to vote for RR and was equally happy to get rid of Jimmy Carter. I was young--and some thought I nuts to vote for Reagan. Many folks thought Reagan was a joke, an idiot, and some though him unfit for office. My guess is that Trump is much like Reagan in that he knows what needs to be done. What he lacks is Reagans charm and Regans's ability to poke fun at himself--something that ended up endearing him to the American people. In the end, I suspect Trump will end up being pretty good for the country (something that may even one day be a widely shared opinion)--despite that, he will probably never enjoy much over 50% popularity because of his personality.

LOL! I have a few elections on you. My first was Richard Nixon's re-election. Now there was a guy that few had a real fondness for personally, but thought he was doing a pretty good job as POTUS. My biggest gripe with him was when he pulled a rabbit out of the Democrats' hat with wage and price controls. Dang I was ticked off at him for that, but voted for him a couple of years later anyway. If he hadn't been caught up in Watergate, he would have been pretty highly regarded among presidents in my lifetime. Although I was pretty down on Clinton, Carter and Obama, the president I disliked most was and is Lyndon Johnson. There isn't enough room in a message board post for me to expound on how much I dislike him.

I don't share the optimism you have about Trump. I was happy with his SCOTUS choice and the kickstart on the business climate, but until the tax reform legislation, it hasn't been a stellar showing IMO. I am still not sure the tax bill is going to be a long term benefit, considering the cost, but if he follows through on some of the cuts and doesn't get to overspend elsewhere, there is a chance for it to work out. My stance on this administration, given it's volatile leader, is to expect the worst and pray for the best.

(03-03-2018 02:45 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  Slight Difference between a prediction and saying something in the past. Link to where Brennan perjured himself please or is this just an opinion again?

Hopefully this will work, I’m on my phone, so not so sure.

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/201...rjury.html

(03-03-2018 08:32 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  The bastions of fascism can be found on Wall Street. Main Street, which used to be lined with local independent businesses, are now lined with predatory, transnational giants. And along the Potomac, we find politicians who are more than happy to do the bidding of their corporate overlords. We are no longer a government of the people. Our politicians are bought and paid for by corporate interests.

Today in America, we are dangerously close to seeing Wallace’s fascistic, dystopic America come into fruition. We see the traces of it everywhere.

Unfortunately, too many Americans just don’t have a word to define what’s happening. But when corporations control government. The word for it is Fascism.

El Oh El

And you were backing a clintoon?

No pol more “owned” by corporations and corporate greed, probably in our history.

It’s partially why she had to cheat and rig the system back as far as the word jump. And STILL could barely dispense with a 75 Yo communist senator from freaking Vermont.

Too funny, the walking, talking contradiction...

(03-04-2018 01:02 AM)Zombiewoof Wrote:  

(03-04-2018 12:44 AM)Jjoey52 Wrote:  And only 7 more years.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

You may be right, but indicators suggest that may not be the case. Direction of the country polls strongly suggest that the majority of Americans don't care for the direction we are going. The best figures for Trump was 39% last March.

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls...y-902.html

His job performance and personal approval numbers have been consistently poor and given his propensity to find new groups of people to offend, I don't see those numbers improving significantly.

Before someone goes off on a rant about how poor the polls were prior to the 2016 election, I agree that they were way off the mark. He had no job performance at that time and I have seen a lot of Trump supporters fall away since he has taken office. Some of the people I knew that were 100% for him over HRC aren't likely to vote for him again.

It’s gonna all depend (mostly) on two things.

The economy, meaning jobs, wages and job security.

The alternative.

Trot out the Warren/Waters ticket and we’ll see 1984 all over again.

Of course Brennan, Clapper, Comey, etc. are trying to discredit the Trump administration. They were participants in trying to squash his presidential bid and since he was elected (even before he was on the job long enough to do anything) have been in full discredit mode.............they are worried they will be found to have broken the law and suffer the consequences.

Btw, Obama fits all the adjectives in the thread title save for maybe the unstable part, but definitely the inexperienced, unethical and inept. Thank the lord for the inept part or he would have had us much further down the Marxist path.