This is a forum based out of Pensacola Florida.


You are not connected. Please login or register

Ivana Trump was born in Soviet controlled Eastern Europe

View previous topic View next topic Go down  Message [Page 1 of 1]

The Soviets looked at long term penetration of America. Some of their agents took decades to rise in American society. Cultivated early and planted for the long haul. Her immigration through Canada do not necessarily raise red flags, but certainly she slipped under the radar and became an integral part of the Trump organization where she was a working partner in the NJ casinos before being relegated to the plaza.....all the while the Russian mob was laundering money in Trump towers. Strange purchase of a newspaper in Croatia after the divorce, when she was not from that country. There is the need for a very deep investigation of those connections with the Trump organizations that starts with complete examinations of financial connections.

View user profile
That investigation belongs on the other side of the political aisle.

View user profile
That investigation belongs on the other side of the political aisle.


President Trump while a private citizen which is now showing had long and questionable ties with Russian organized crime, tries to disrupt the American political system by questioning that President Trump was born in Kenya. He is now President and has the whole intelligence apparatus to prove his case which he claimed his investigators had found proof which was never disclosed.....and all our intelligence agencies are talking about cut outs, and covert Russian interference throughout Europe and America........get to the financial paper trail......it simply is where the answer lies.

View user profile
President Trump while a private citizen which is now showing had long and questionable ties with Russian organized crime, tries to disrupt the American political system by questioning that President Trump was born in Kenya.

WTF?

View user profile http://www.flickr.com/photos/btraven/
Oats is a loony, I told ya.

View user profile
Vikingwoman wrote:Oats is a loony, I told ya.

It's not the loonieness, it's the fact that he has so little regard for the readers other members of the forum. He just posts stuff without editing it first, like he doesn't know how to use the preview button.

It's one thing to post a couple sentences in a hurry but he posts long paragraphs of stuff without any effort to make it understandable--like he just types whatever comes into his head and hits Send, which leaves the reader with the job of sorting it out.

I suspect that he has such an inflated opinion of himself that he holds all the other members in contempt.

Really, how long does it take to hit Preview and read what you're posting with and eye to precision and clarity. Shameful in a person with any education.

Sister Mary Pugnacious. my 4th grade teacher, would have slapped the shit out of my hand with that goddamn wooden Wescott ruler of hers, the one with the metal edge, if I handed in something like his stuff.

View user profile http://www.flickr.com/photos/btraven/
Most of the long diatribes he posts are nothing more than pats on his back to assuage his flailing ego. If he's not boasting about all that he owns, his influential connections or his daughter who is a prosecutor he is attacking those who he thinks are inferior to his superior knowledge. He has a deluded sense of importance that frustrates him when others don't see it. He's very much like Trump but on a minuscule scale financially.

View user profile
Looney, crazy, a poor writer, dirty, and stupid. Too funny. One person argues the DC code does not apply to Washington DC and the other argued the officer who stopped Sandra would not be indicted, and I am arrogant.....how could I not be arrogant with children who need to read and understand simple concepts and bumble around in remedial classes which I hold regularly. I guess you will not bring an apple to the teacher this week.

View user profile
He wasn't indicted for pulling her over. You distort the facts. He was indicted for lying.

View user profile
He wasn't indicted for pulling her over. You distort the facts. He was indicted for lying.


Which I tried to explain to you.

2016
http://www.wsj.com/articles/texas-grand-jury-indicts-trooper-in-sandra-bland-case-1452119688

Justice is often slow, but at least the officer will get a trial, and will have no problem posting bond. This is a great country, and I do not care a whit if he is found guilty or innocent, but he clearly lied as I originally pointed out and he was going to be prosecuted for those discrepancies which were shameful. He will be able to work another job, raise his family, and probably will have a great many people who will support him, Sandra just will not be afforded those same options in her young life.......it is a sad story for all involved. We just have to have police respect citizens, and we can go such a long way to making this country right again.

I predicted exactly what would happen after you told us that the officer would not be indicted. The family would not get a wrongful death settlement, and the officer would not be fired. You are at least consistent.

View user profile
del.capslock wrote:I suspect that he has such an inflated opinion of himself that he holds all the other members in contempt.


Oh, you finally figured that out?

View user profile
Nah, nah nah. You consistently argued he didn't have the right to ask her out of the car- not lying. You just made that up. The family did not get a settlement from the Troopers of which you opined was a violation of her rights and were proven wrong. They got it from the jail. You're trying to distort the facts again to fit your narrative like you did w/ May saying there was no video.
BTW, the charge was dropped.

View user profile
Nah, nah nah. You consistently argued he didn't have the right to ask her out of the car- not lying. You just made that up. The family did not get a settlement from the Troopers of which you opined was a violation of her rights and were proven wrong. They got it from the jail. You're trying to distort the facts again to fit your narrative like you did w/ May saying there was no video.
BTW, the charge was dropped.


You do entertain me. I did argue that the officer conduct at the stop was unprofessional and that he would be indicted for perjury which I quoted Texas law and you said that he would not be indicted. I gave you the exact words he told his supervisor and what he put on his report which were lies. Now you deny what you said in utter ignorance what you had said, like you do every time I correct you for your lack of knowledge.

In regard to my quite correctly predicting that the family would get a Wrongful death settlement, a concept which you once again prove here that you are clueless, you also said they would not get a dime in a civil suit. Now was that just luck on my part or in my experience have I been personally involved in settling jail hanging cases in my jurisdiction. Gosh, who knows. Utter ignorance versus somebody who knows how a jail hanging wrongful death action works. Oh, and one of those cases involved an arrest where mistakes were made by one agency at the arrest, and then mistakes by another agency at the booking. Both contributed to the settlement and the daughter of the decedent got a rather large settlement as she was a five year old girl.

Now, in regard to the charges being dropped, it was a plea bargain. They dropped the perjury charge if the officer signed off that he would never serve in law enforcement again anywhere. Exactly like I predicted when I said the family would be bought off like the Victor Steen case, and the state would go easy on the officer. My prediction was very clear that he would be indicted and I could care less what follows because the indictment showed that the officer was lying and he would be fired. You denied that there would be an indictment or that the officer would be fired, but the best part you denied the perjury which I gave you Texas law. Just like the May case, you were wrong at every turn, and just like every time I have corrected you, you feebly attempt to deny your prior positions. The best part you have not figured out that it is not luck that I get these things right. Yep, higher level conceptual thinking is not an area where you have a high aptitude, but again you do provide consistent entertainment.........and you wonder why I am arrogant.

View user profile
Actually, you said he would be fired for making Bland get out of the car because it was unconstitutional but you later found out he could do that under Texas law. What the trooper put in his report was not available for some time after so you could not have argued he lied. I said there would be no settlement from the Dept. of Public Safety. Just like you lied in the May case saying that there was no video showing who was in the car and the officer did not call the supervisor. The video proved you wrong and that you were the liar.

View user profile
You make me smile. You were wrong at every turn because you have no experience in these matters, and then are unable to figure out why I am always correct. You just get angry and attack, but calling me a liar that I said he would be indicted for perjury where I gave you the Texas law and you said no he would not be indicted......the law I quoted was not on the stop. It was the perjury statute. You still do not understand the civil suit issues, but now try to tell me I said the civil suit would come from the arrest only. I have personal experience in jail hangings and settlements and quite clearly and correctly told you that they would pay a civil settlement, and would pay a great deal to avoid a trial. You said there would be no civil settlement and that I was crazy. Also, I told you the arresting officer would be fired. You said he would not be fired. I love it when you talk about things you do not understand. I just get amusement watching you paint yourself into a corner, and then denying the same.

View user profile

Sponsored content


View previous topic View next topic Back to top  Message [Page 1 of 1]

Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum