Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
Honored Advisor

Denninger on President Trump

See Libs, this is what a legitimate critique of President Trump looks like, it`s difficult to defend against a LEGIMATE critique of Trump.   I will say this, if you are a purist, swamp drainin`, freedom caucus saint...that`s great and all, but you need to support the President, when fools dress up like vaginas and take to the streets, you need to rise up and bust their vagina heads or don`t complain when Trump has to make deals with the devil to preserve his presidency.  We do get the government we deserve, Trump isn`t Jesus Christ he isn`t going to hang on the cross and take the stripes for us, all us good people are "Donald Trump".  


The Bad Joke That Trump Is Turning Out To Be

[Comments enabled]  

Oh sure, there are things you can point at when it comes to a Trump Presidency and say "that's better than it was."

For example, illegal invaders.  No, folks, they're not immigrants.  They're criminal invaders. You may love one, you may live with one or more, they may have come here just wanting a better life but the fact is that their first act was to violate the law of this nation and they did it to access the wealth and benefits of this nation -- in other words, with the intent to steal that to which they were not entitled to.

There's a legal way to come and live in the United States.  It happens to be somewhat selective, and with good reason.  Nations do not exist without borders, a common language and a common culture.  No nation is or ever should be obligated to modify any of those three for someone who is not a citizen and wishes to come -- it's the other way around, and the reason nations have immigration laws is to provide some assurance that those who come will change their behavior to respect said border and assimilate into the existing language and culture.

If you want to see what happens when you don't respect that I direct you to the fine doctor lady now under arrest in Michigan who is accused of mutilating girl's genitals for religious reasons, otherwise known as female genital mutilation.  Would you care to guess her religious affiliation?

It is exactly this sort of event that highlights why nations have every reason to impose constraints on immigration.  No, those constraints aren't perfect, and no, not everyone who refuses to accede to cultural norms is an immigrant.  But that's why these laws are not only Constitutional they're also both reasonable and necessary.

Unless, of course, you like the idea of having your daughter's clitoris cut off.

Further, don't try to run that crap about how "they've been here for so long and put down such roots" that they're entitled to stay.  Wrong again.  That someone happens to be a good bank robber (that is, they don't get caught) for years makes their offense more-serious, not less-so.  Every day a person is here on an unauthorized basis and both accesses and benefits from the capital and sweat equity investment in this nation unlawfully is a separate and distinct offense.  To attempt to lever sympathy through other interpersonal interactions (or worse, creating children who had no knowledge of what you were doing in the first instance) is an aggravating, not mitigating, circumstance.

Let's leave this one behind for now, because on any rational analysis enforcement of immigration laws is good, not bad.

I prefer to move to the bad for the time being.

Like, for instance, what certainly appears to be Racketeering in the House on both sides of the aisle when it comes to how Congress conducts itself.

See, it has come to light (and in fact did several years ago, but has recently been reconfirmed) that in order to get a seat on a committee you must raise hundreds of thousands of dollars for the party.  To keep it you must continue to do so on a recurring, annual basis.  The better the committee or the more-important the seat (e.g. the chair, vice-chair, etc) the more money you must raise.

If you recall it is rather illegal to bribe people in most instances.  Well, what's this folks?  And these aren't "one-off" bribes either they are formal political structures that the party leadership not only permits it created and enforces them.

What do you call that?  I call it Racketeering.

What has Trump said about that?  Nothing.


What has Jeff Sessions, his Attorney General and formerly a Senator (oops) said about it?


Gee, I wonder why?  I wonder where the indictments are?

Let me remind you that it is illegal for any government official to ask for, demand, solicit or accept anything of value in return for altering the performance of one's duties in any way.

There is no exception that says it's ok if the money comes from other people and is paid to the political party instead of an individual official.

It's rather clear, really -- you can find the law right here in 18 USC Section 201:


(1)directly or indirectly, corruptly gives, offers or promises anything of value to any public official or person who has been selected to be a public official, or offers or promises any public official or any person who has been selected to be a public official to give anything of value to any other person or entity, with intent—

(A)to influence any official act; or
(B)to influence such public official or person who has been selected to be a public official to commit or aid in committing, or collude in, or allow, any fraud, or make opportunity for the commission of any fraud, on the United States; or
(C)to induce such public official or such person who has been selected to be a public official to do or omit to do any act in violation of the lawful duty of such official or person;

(2)being a public official or person selected to be a public official, directly or indirectly, corruptly demands, seeks, receives, accepts, or agrees to receive or accept anything of value personally or for any other person or entity, in return for:

(A)being influenced in the performance of any official act;
(B)being influenced to commit or aid in committing, or to collude in, or allow, any fraud, or make opportunity for the commission of any fraud, on the United States; or
(C)being induced to do or omit to do any act in violation of the official duty of such official or person;

(3)directly or indirectly, corruptly gives, offers, or promises anything of value to any person, or offers or promises such person to give anything of value to any other person or entity, with intent to influence the testimony under oath or affirmation of such first-mentioned person as a witness upon a trial, hearing, or other proceeding, before any court, any committee of either House or both Houses of Congress, or any agency, commission, or officer authorized by the laws of the United States to hear evidence or take testimony, or with intent to influence such person to absent himself therefrom;

(4)directly or indirectly, corruptly demands, seeks, receives, accepts, or agrees to receive or accept anything of value personally or for any other person or entity in return for being influenced in testimony under oath or affirmation as a witness upon any such trial, hearing, or other proceeding, or in return for absenting himself therefrom;

shall be fined under this title or not more than three times the monetary equivalent of the thing of value, whichever is greater, or imprisoned for not more than fifteen years, or both, and may be disqualified from holding any office of honor, trust, or profit under the United States.

That's pretty clear.  Do you see a "this law doesn't apply to member of Congress being required to raise money for the party in order to sit on a congressional committee"?

I don't.

Where's the mainstream media coverage of this?  There have been a few "tongue slips" that I've heard on the air in the last couple of months (itself a revelation) but interestingly enough, Google can't find them.  Gee, I wonder if Google might be complicit in removing any search indexing on such things?  Naw, there's no reason to worry about big, data-centric search engines in that regard, right?  Google, Apple, Amazon, Facebook -- none of them have a reason to shovel dirt over the record and try to obscure things, do they -- especially when it's publicly-uttered admissions of brazen lawlessness in Washington DC.....

Trump was going to drain the swamp eh?  Uh huh.  Sure he is.

And then of course there's health care.  You want a swamp, there's a swamp.  One dollar in five spent in the country, 37% of every dollar spent last fiscal year by the Federal Government and 80% of both are spent due to inflated prices created by various forms of price-fixing and monopoly behavior all of which is supposed to be illegal under long-standing federal law and, I remind you, the "industry" has twice been to the Supreme Court to try to go around those laws and lost both times.

So where, once again, are the indictments?

Uh huh.

Quit talking about Trump "draining the swamp."  He in fact scammed everyone in this nation right into the Presidency.  Save me the bleating from the left about Hillary, by the way -- she was worse.

Let me remind you that since I'm a former CEO I know damn well what the scam is in the Health industry, because I had to deal with it when it came to benefits for my employees.  This means Trump knows it well too.  And while I didn't know until fairly recently how corrupt the committee system was in Congress or that it was blatantly organized and in quite-clear violation of long-standing Federal Law, I do now and so does Trump.

And finally, it is the Executive that enforces laws.

So where is the enforcement that you swore on the Bible you would uphold and undertake, jackass?

1 Reply

strange bedfellows

As a fairly legitimate tea partier, denninger turned critical of the gop as the party of god, guns and gays.


As per your lead, the only thing that holds the factions together is a belief that "liberals" are the source of all the problems.


Unfortunately they can't agree on what to do to improve matters, as per health care.