To Trump critics who will say this is admission of liability and fault, please read CAREFULLY the section of the ARTICLE that is headed with “Real Money”. Pay particular attention to the 2nd and 3rd paragraphs.
The purpose of the settlement is to move away from this distraction in exchange for “pocket/ chump change”, to Make America Rule-of-Law-Abiding and Great Again.
Thank you for your attention to this important announcement and lesson in executive management concepts.
The statement from the New York Attorney General (link below) says “Donald Trump will pay up to $1 million in penalties to the State of New York for violating state education laws.” I think where the Attorney General says “violating state education laws” it means “violating state education laws.” Typically, penalties are only paid to state AGs when a law has been broken.
You don’t know much about the government if you believe that last bit.
And on this matter it was a matter of a name. That is not a serious offense of any type. If our government is wasting time on that, and spending millions of dollars to prosecute Trump, it reflects badly on them, rather than Trump.
December 12, 2016 at 12:51 am
UW says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Wow, cognitive dissonance at it’s finest. So paying more than most people could ever pay in a fraud suit reflects positively on the person paying it, and poorly on the government. What a joke. Oh, you didn’t say it was positive, so I’m sure you think he was guilty, but should have got more than a slap on the wrist, right?
November 21, 2016 at 10:24 am
Ron says:
Hot debate. What do you think?
15
11
DePolarBearables,
Nice to see that you are condoning someone for going against his word and principles.
He settled because he knows he was going to lose, period.
Neither he nor anyone involved in his administration needed to be part of the lawsuit outside of testifying for a few hours. That would not have detracted him from completing a thorough transition into his presidency.
Ron, one time Yogi said if he paid for courses here it would not have been fraud, because he’s smart and would have understood the material. He doesn’t understand the course itself is the fraud.
Also, Yogi, hypocritical idiot, he paid because if he went to trial and was found guilty he could be impeached, same if he testified, since he lies on average every 3 minutes and would then be open to perjury charges, and impeachment. Don’t dismiss that he also knows his supporters are rubes that will just repeat whatever he says so there is little negative effect for paying a fortune in a fraud case. He should be in prison, but there are no consequences for anything conservatives do.
No. And even if he were, the government errs on the side of guilty, not innocent, for businesses. I have seen this personally. I have seen people lose or settle because the cost to defend is too high.
If you operate under the assumption being in INSURANCE thinking that most people settle due to guilt, you’re a fool.
How much do you even know about settlements in the insurance industry? I would argue the vast MAJORITY of settled claims are NOT due to someone being guilty but instead costs and damaged image for larger firms.
You realize this was not an insurance settlement, right? He is the one who said he would win the case. Maybe it is just him going against his own word…again.
My point is that he went against his own word and principles. What part of that do you not understand?
If the reason to settle is because it is too expensive and time consuming, they would have settled years ago to save money and time.
In my opinion, he was most likely advised by his legal team that he would not win the case, and a judgment against a president-elect or sitting president for fraud would not look good for him in his re-election bid.
Unfortunately, we will never know for certain.
November 28, 2016 at 1:16 pm
Bob says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
“My point is that he went against his own word and principles. What part of that do you not understand?”
And you call us conservatives judgemental. You are predicting based on your observation of his personality what would be normal for Trump.
Perhaps years ago he thought he could win, and perhaps now, it became clear he couldn’t? I have seen many a supposed “arrogant” from your point of view I’m sure, businessmen walk in thinking they can win.
Also, what do you know about trials? They set a date out and it gets drawn out to the point of YEARS before anyone would have any idea of whether a case is going to be settled. Recently, the government decided in a political move that the Trump University case needed to start progress before the election. I would call that by the way, the government trying to shut Trump down. Just as a side comment, if you didn’t realize that was political, you’re a fool.
Now, within a few months of that, Trump settled.
Perhaps it became evident that the government wasn’t going to quit on it, it could damage his company image, and, that he no longer was safe in winning?
But instead, the jackass you are, you weigh his supposed normal actions (you over zealous prick, I don’t like it when democrats do it, I don’t like it when republicans like agent do it, it’s over zealous Ron, and I will see you admit it!) and you claim because reasons and what not, that you’ve figured out Trump must be guilty because now he’s suddenly settling and that isn’t in his character.
You sound like my senile mother talking about my sister’s boyfriends motivations back in the day. It’s stupid as hell Ron. You have no self reflection though…
November 28, 2016 at 1:56 pm
Ron says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Bob,
Since when is holding a man to his word and principles being over zealous? It is called accountability. He is the one who said he could win the case easily, not me. He is the one who said he never settles, not me.
The government was not suing him, private citizens were.
Get a clue or stop posting your garbage defenses of this fraudulent snake-oil salesman.
November 28, 2016 at 6:20 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
“Since when is holding a man to his word and principles being over zealous? It is called accountability. He is the one who said he could win the case easily, not me. He is the one who said he never settles, not me.”
When you start making up what his principles are, and then say he’s against them, because he settled a case when he found that he should. Being paranoid with things like this, you didn’t do with Obama. And when he said he could, and he should, he thought he could and he should, but the government happens to over reach a lot. I have personally thought and seen, that a firm would be fine, who was fined for something they NEVER should have been. And they thought they were fine and they did the same thing with regards to saying what they said. It’s called being upset about something being unfair.
“The government was not suing him, private citizens were.”
Private citizens who are saying they didn’t realize they were not in a University? This fine is a government fine due to an absurd regulation. Also, just because you made a bad choice and didn’t have a pay off from it, doesn’t mean Trump was bad.
“Get a clue or stop posting your garbage defenses of this fraudulent snake-oil salesman.”
I don’t have to like his actions to dislike government over reach, or to find the people who did the suit particularly stupid and immoral. If you buy something designed to show you how to make money, and you don’t live up to your end of following it, it’s your own fault. I have seen so called get rich quick schemes, but I don’t find them to be snake salesmen. They are people who are trying to make a living, and if people for example with the Mary Kay make up sales succeed then good. If they fail then bad. I see these two things as no different, except there is a much higher risk to reward ratio with Trumps classes.
You are looking to find problems and immorality, because you start with the perception of immorality, like when he backs off the case. That is your flaw.
If you’re not here to think on your own, don’t post.
December 12, 2016 at 12:55 am
UW says:
Like or Dislike:
0
1
“And you call us conservatives judgemental. You are predicting based on your observation of his personality what would be normal for Trump.”
No, you ignorant piece of crap, he is going by exactly what Trump has stated for decades, and on the campaign trail.
You are so willing to explain away anything any conservative does, it is astounding and disturbing. You literally have no free will, or ability to think for yourself on any topic. Trump did this because if he had a trial during his presidency he would be under oath, and would face perjury charges in a fraud trial, which would be an impeachable offense.
Also, this is the case where he clearly bribed Bondi to drop the case, another impeachable offense. This is worth the money to pay for him, because it was not being handled by a partisan hack he could just give a job to in order to make it go away.
November 21, 2016 at 11:59 am
DePolarBearables says:
Like or Dislike:
5
8
Hi, Mr. Mind-reader.
Please tell us all what Warren Buffet, Trump, Bill Gates are thinking right now.
Let me re-phrase my point so it’s easier for you to comprehend.
Trump settled to ‘move onto with more important things’. There is NO admission of guilt or law breaking implied.
Legal costs would EASILY exceed the settlement amount if the trial dragged on an kept Trump from his duties as PresidenTrump.
PresidenTrump is doing the most cost efficient and time efficient thing by settling. His lawyers advised him of the consequences of prolonged litigation while he serves as PresidenTrump.
For a real life example, consider Obama taking vacations multiple times in a year. That kept him from doing work as POTUS and fixing problems with ACA, civil relations, illegal immigration, the economy, jobs, foreign policy, etc. Oh, wait! Obama in the Oval Office with a pen and phone is actually a bad thing for American citizens who pull the wagon, and for our foreign allies. Give me a few minutes to think of a better example.
He could have settled this years ago, prior to campaigning, or even before the election that he said he was going to win. The timing makes no sense if his reason was time management or saving legal costs.
This was fraud, plain and simple. If you choose to be naive and blind about it, for what ever reason, then so be it.
For the record, the POTUS is NEVER on vacation. They are 24/7, 365. That is why I never criticized President GW Bush for taking the most “vacation” time as any president. Like facts might actually matter to you.
This is a SETTLEMENT, and NOT A JUDGEMENT – as you claim in your declarations of fraud, guilt, corruption, etc.
So, now that THIS issue has ended favorably for Trump, you can move on to other criticisms of PresidenTrump that will ultimately fail. Please do so, as I need to read something amusing this afternoon.
November 22, 2016 at 2:36 pm
Ron says:
Like or Dislike:
3
1
There was only one way I, and tens of millions of Americans would believe his innocence, and that is if a jury found in his favor, period. He decided to minimize the damage of his fraudulent “university”, and that is his choice. But choices have consequences. In this case, tens of millions of people will always see him as a swindler. Settling never fixes that.
November 23, 2016 at 12:14 pm
DePolarBearables says:
Like or Dislike:
1
4
I understand that some Liberals only follow laws that favor their agenda.
Innocent until proven guilty is a crutch for Libbies when they are arrested and prosecuted. But it is invalid when someone settles a CIVIL action if that litigant holds and opposing viewpoint.
I get it. Liberals can’t win, so they change the rules mid-game. Example: Super-delegates; OK. Electoral College; not ok.
November 23, 2016 at 12:28 pm
Ron says:
Like or Dislike:
3
2
First, I am not a Liberal.
Second, please cite when I have ever changed my position on a topic based on results. If you can’t, stop lying.
November 23, 2016 at 4:26 pm
Bob says:
Like or Dislike:
1
3
“First, I am not a Liberal.
Second, please cite when I have ever changed my position on a topic based on results. If you can’t, stop lying.”
Yes you are. Just because you call yourself independent does not mean you are not liberal. Liberal can be a political association, but most of the time, it is referring to a mindset. You are clearly liberal.
November 28, 2016 at 6:34 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
0
1
Do you even know how lawsuits work? Why would he settle the lawsuit before being scheduled to appear in court? Until that time you don’t know your odds of winning.
This trial date was set in May. That means it was likely going on for years, but how much do you pay attention in your field? Are you in insurance?
From when a claim is reported, how long does it take to get to court, and from there to close?
Are you just this stupid? What field of insurance are you in?
You are basically looking for reasons to get pissed off at Trump, whereas in the past you would call these types of things ludicrous with Obama.
Also, if the name of the company is the only reason they are being fined, I think it shows this is a trivial law suit.
November 28, 2016 at 6:39 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
0
1
Also I will add, that if there was sleaze going on at Trump University, you would need to show Trump intended for the company to operate that way.
Many times Trump puts his name on something, and lets others lead it. It can indeed be a recipe for disaster, but it doesn’t make Trump complicity immoral for Trump University’s actions any more than if some Trump Steaks were butchered improperly by butchers wrecklessly cutting corners to extract more beef form dangerous areas of the animal and people got sick thinking they were buying high quality Trump steak.
November 23, 2016 at 4:25 pm
Bob says:
Like or Dislike:
0
1
And his definition of win in this circumstance is not to keep it going through his campaign.
ALL the evidence pointed to Hillary’s guilt in multiple treasonous actions for personal and political gain; e.g. several foreign nations and entities have begun to withdraw from The Clinton Foundation because ‘paying’ won’t get ‘playing by Clinton, to their benefit’. Nothing is simpler to understand than that.
Taking your approach, can I assume she is guilty without a full trial?
Let me know ASAP, so I can begin using that powerful ‘trump’ card.
State security that Hillary definitely violated, we have the emails which were marked classified at the time of sending,
We have law precedent showing we don’t tolerate this even by mistake (a military man was recently in huge trouble for having pictures of a submarine on his phone)
And you compare that, to a kangaroo court case that the government is in progress with Trump on an absurd government issue in terms of business?
Just looking at the claims of the Trump university, some people were satisfied, and some people were not.
It sounds to me like they paid a lot of money and then didn’t succeed and got mad.
By the way, FALSE EQUIVALENCY.
It does not make one a hypocrite to call someone innocent on this case, and to call it less severe than Hillary.
You sound like a snot nosed brat. Almost all your comments are “You’re not being fair” “you’re being a hypocrite” we we we we we.
Shut up kid. Maybe people have their reasons for believing things, and the second you say this it’s just you being a jack ass.
If you want to debate the facts, fine, but to call someone a biased person for holding someone accountable, because they don’t hold one you find accountable accountable, well…You’re just an idiot.
November 21, 2016 at 12:02 pm
DePolarBearables says:
Like or Dislike:
7
10
Testifying for a ‘few hours’ wouldn’t bother him.
Can you quote a source, such as the plaintiff’s attorney, who promised this time restriction for depositions or court testimony?
If not, stop lying, because you will be caught in your pretzel of non-truths made to support a specious argument.
You are right, I do not know how long his testimony may take.
However, I will stand by my statement that this is clear evidence that Donald Trump goes against his own words and principles.
“Do you know that almost everybody in the lawsuit has signed a letter saying how great the school was? That’s why I won’t settle because it’s an easy case to win in court,”
“I don’t settle lawsuits, probably should have settled it, but I just can’t do that. Mentally I can’t do it. I’d rather spend a lot more money and fight it.”
“Trump University has a 98% approval rating. I could have settled but won’t out of principle!”
“The phony lawsuit against Trump U could have been easily settled by me but I want to go to court. 98% approval rating by students. Easy win”
“I don’t settle cases,” Trump said. “I don’t do it because that’s why I don’t get sued very often, because I don’t settle, unlike a lot of other people.”
I don’t know why you post these facts. Don’t you know by now DePolarBearables has literally no interest in the truth. His true agenda is spreading hate through fear mongering and proving that “his” President can’t be wrong. Let me(again, I voted for Trump) be the one to say it: settling out of court is essentially an admission of guilt. Anyone who has read about Trump University knows it was a scam. That being said it doesn’t mean automatically mean he is going to scam our country. I have a hard time believing Trump’s involvement with TU was anything beyond his name. Someone with a business record as substantial as his WILL have some failures.
I am on the record as saying that I am willing to give him a chance as our president. However, unlike DePolarBearables, I will not give him a free pass.
Failures are fine. My problem is his inherent inability to take responsibility and apologize when he does fail. That needs to change if he wants to unite the country.
I don’t know what to believe anymore. Have you read about Jeff Sessions? Some say he is a known racist but the facts say he prosecuted and had a leader of the Alabama chapter of the KKK executed for murdering a BLACK teen. I voted Trump because I feel our political system needs to be shaken to its core. The only way to impose change is to force it. You can’t wait. You can’t hope. Trump, albeit scary in some regards, is also viewed as a breath of fresh air for many who never felt they were heard by their politicians. The sad truth, though, is a decent amount of those who voted for Trump feel that the only way to make American “great again” is to reduce the rights and liberties of those they deem “unfit” to exist in the U.S. — people of color, minorities, gays, etc. I want all non-conservatives on this blog to know that being a conservative does not automatically make one racist or morally obtuse. Unfortunately, it seems the two main representatives for the Republican party on this blog (Agent, DePolar) are so extreme in their views that they feel the need to constantly degrade, belittle and demean anyone who doesn’t share their EXACT views. I don’t remember where but I saw one of them literally say (and im paraphrasing, give me a break) “WE WON’T COMPROMISE WITH LIBERAL SOCIALIST”. ARE YOU KIDDING ME??? Look, Ron, economically you and I may not agree on much but one thing I think we can agree on is that things are broken. Since Agent and DePolar won’t extend an olive branch I will. And to everyone else here – a line needs to be drawn. There is so much filth here. So much hatred. People need to swallow their pride and realize the difference between accepting and tolerating something. I do not accept two men getting married, however, I do tolerate it. It is not my business. It is not my job to impose my beliefs on others. Same to all of you. I truly fear for the future of our country. The result of this election is worse than I could have intended. If we cannot create peace here how will the country ever create peace? W
Very well said. Actually, I am fiscally conservative. My issue with the Republican party are two-fold. First, their positions on social issues. How can we have a free country when people cannot live their lives free of oppression? I am not talking about the Black Lives Matter movement in particular, more about; the freedom for 2 consenting adults to enter into the same contract as 2 other consenting adults, the freedom to use a plant for medicinal and/or recreational purposes, the freedom to make choices regarding one’s own body, the freedom to exercise one’s beliefs or the lack thereof, etc.
Second, their failure to actually exercise fiscal restraint when they have held the purse strings.
I have several friends and family members who are Conservatives and I respect their positions. Even if I do not agree with all of them.
November 21, 2016 at 6:25 pm
Conserving the Truth says:
Like or Dislike:
4
0
Ron,
I suppose I would be considered a new school conservative. I have no problem with equal rights for ALL. Gay, black, trans, Muslims…it means nothing to me. I feel that many Republicans are stuck on “well, the Bible says…” but here is the thing: WE ARE NOT A COUNTRY DICTATED BY A SINGLE RELIGION. People hug their constitution so tight but tend to forget about something called SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE. A true Conservative understands individual liberties. Those who look down on gays/Muslims/etc will be viewed as harshly as those who looked down upon blacks in the mid 1900s. I have always believed the ultimate value of conservatism was sustaining oneself and their family. Why intrude on others? Why care? It is so ironic to me that they fear socialism (which they should) but also believe something like abortion should be outlawed. It is basically saying, “I want to control you in some aspects of life while completely ignoring you in others”. The truth is (and I don’t think they see it) Trump is the end of Republicanism as they know it. Again, my vote for him was to assist completely destroying our two party system as we know it. Things will never be the same and that was the goal.
November 23, 2016 at 12:16 pm
DePolarBearables says:
Like or Dislike:
0
5
AFTER a post like that, you should use the moniker Contorting the Truth.
November 23, 2016 at 5:07 pm
Bob says:
Like or Dislike:
0
2
“Conserving the Truth,
Very well said. Actually, I am fiscally conservative.”
No you’re not. You have said in the name of “fairness” you would like to give two higher earning gay couples tax advantages. This is both socially and fiscally conservative. It is but one example. Also, you seem to support throwing fiscal restraint to the wind with regards to Syrian Refugees.
“My issue with the Republican party are two-fold. First, their positions on social issues.”
Name one. You haven’t to date, other than possibly abortion which is patently absurd.
“How can we have a free country when people cannot live their lives free of oppression? I am not talking about the Black Lives Matter movement in particular, more about; the freedom for 2 consenting adults to enter into the same contract as 2 other consenting adults, the freedom to use a plant for medicinal and/or recreational purposes, the freedom to make choices regarding one’s own body, the freedom to exercise one’s beliefs or the lack thereof, etc.”
2 consenting adults is a fake argument, and they are not entitled to the same contract we give to heterosexual couples, which was written specifically with them in mind. Freedom to use medicinal plants remember How Gingrich was for legalizing pot? Republicans and democrats are equally for and against this. Freedom to make choices regarding your body does not include a new growing life. And when you mentioned exercising their beliefs, I noticed that was generalized and not specific with an example of where that was infringed.
“Second, their failure to actually exercise fiscal restraint when they have held the purse strings.”
Proven wrong in my many posts, showing Reagan’s proposed cuts, the 1995 congress proposed cuts that caused 2 shut downs, and the fact that inclusive of their spending on the Iraq war, the Bush W era politicians had a deficit that as a percent of GDP was much smaller than Obama and the democrat replacements. I don’t use spending as a percent of debt because Obama paid money to lower interest rates, which makes his spending interest not show up for a while. If we go by annual deficits and spending, 3 of Obama’s years were over a Trillion specifically due to spending whereas only one of George W’s was, and that was also due to a recession making it worse. All his other years were well within reasonable years while republicans had control of congress until 2006. They were all much better. The CBO mentioned how much Reagan’s plan would cut compared to Carter’s budget going forward, and it was massive. The 95 republican cuts were massive. And the spending increase from the 2001-2006 republicans to Bush W were all massively less than the 2007 to 2009 democrat congress, and then followed by the 2009-2012 spending splurge where Obama got exactly what he wanted (QE, Stimulus, etc)
“I have several friends and family members who are Conservatives and I respect their positions. Even if I do not agree with all of them”
You specifically are not conservative due to this I’ve noticed. What a rebel. We can’t call you moderate, you’re independent and special after all, and smarter than everyone else to boot, including your step father you mocked when he criticized a program’s wasteful spending because he had rightfully been on it. But you thought he was a hypocrite for not wanting leeching.
You even insult your step father with this bull crap false equivalency.
November 23, 2016 at 5:10 pm
Bob says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
No you’re not. You have said in the name of “fairness” you would like to give two higher earning gay couples tax advantages. This is both socially and fiscally conservative. It is but one example. Also, you seem to support throwing fiscal restraint to the wind with regards to Syrian Refugees. ”
Should read both socially and fiscally fake conservative. Or liberal. Your choice.
People like you are more damaging than agent. At least he doesn’t try to make himself seem like a perfect guy living in a world where everyone else is an idiot.
You don’t have things figured out. Do more research and stop talking in ideological horse crap terms, talk in bills and spending and how it happened, who got what they wanted in spending, who didn’t, what the actual deficits were, why debt as a GDP didn’t raise as fast during the low interest rates and why that means if you want to look at spending you don’t look at debt as a percent of GDP, etc.
November 28, 2016 at 2:17 pm
Bob says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
“There is so much filth here. So much hatred. People need to swallow their pride and realize the difference between accepting and tolerating something. I do not accept two men getting married, however, I do tolerate it. It is not my business. It is not my job to impose my beliefs on others.”
This is some serious next level conflation.
No one here has said anything about gay marriage in an intolerant way, other than possibly agent, and even that I’m not sure. From my recollection he may have said he finds it perverted, but that is not any different than you based on what you just said.
I have made a point of stating that the gay rights issue is a matter of government intervention and balancing religious freedoms with personal. The liberals here are why you are defensively extending an olive branch while saying you’re an accepting conservative. You’re being an apologist for being conservative, because of what other conservatives do. You have no need. I’m partially lecturing you and partially defending you here if you didn’t notice.
I’m also defending conservatism, as the majority of people against the “gay rights” issues are against what I would call “gay force”.
My father was a very devout religious man. His brother was gay. My father talked about gay issues a lot. He also expressed he found it to be morally wrong. He never lectured his brother about it. And more importantly, whenever he had a problem with a law, it was to do with school issues (teaching of morality in the school system where it has no place) and or laws that shut down Catholic adoption agencies.
It happened in Canada first and he saw it coming here well in advance.
There is a clear attack on religions and the U.S. is doing somewhat better than the rest of the 1st world countries, but it is still there and needs to be balanced.
In these nations that did this, in Canada for example, there are places you cannot be Catholic and a government official, and this comes from the fact that if you didn’t know this, the King and Queen of England are not allowed to be Catholic. There was a war between the families, and then they basically modified their government system that no one can be Catholic and a king or queen. Whether the family that did that was oppressive, or the one that took over, the fact remains that ever since then England, and the nations that stayed in England’s power (Canada) remained extremely hostile to religion, and our founding fathers were trying to do away with that. That is what most conservatives stand for today. Laws that do not control religion.
November 28, 2016 at 3:51 pm
Ron says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Bob,
You said, “No one here has said anything about gay marriage in an intolerant way, other than possibly agent, and even that I’m not sure.”
The fact that you do not believe 2 consenting adults of the same gender may not enter into a legal contract because of your own religious beliefs, shows your intolerance.
All people really need to stop telling other people whether or not they are being tolerated, offended, discriminated against, or oppressed without walking a mile in their shoes. That lack of empathy is what is truly causing the divide in this country
November 28, 2016 at 5:50 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
“Bob,
You said, “No one here has said anything about gay marriage in an intolerant way, other than possibly agent, and even that I’m not sure.”
“The fact that you do not believe 2 consenting adults of the same gender may not enter into a legal contract because of your own religious beliefs, shows your intolerance.”‘
Oh my God, you’re a liar and at this point I know you are. We have had this debate, there is no way you don’t know my position on this matter. I have said that people who are gay, should be able to have a law tailored to them, in order to avoid the problems that come with porting over same sex marriage to current marriage law.
“All people really need to stop telling other people whether or not they are being tolerated, offended, discriminated against, or oppressed without walking a mile in their shoes. That lack of empathy is what is truly causing the divide in this country”
You are such a little baby. Every little kid thinks that they are the tolerant one, and you saw these cliche phrases while I spell out legality issues.
Every time you fall back to this.
You are moral! Forgiving! Understanding! Tolerant! It’s just us pesky conservatives!
And you call us self righteous. Let me be clear: I have never taken a position on gay marriage as a matter of biblical morality. Not once.
And you’re damn well aware of it. This is precisely why I call you a liar and a fraud, what you just did here I believe was intentional, either that or it was some serious self gloating, so strong you forgot my positions, in order to feel special.
At which point you’re not worth my time buddy. Ya ain’t special kid. Get over it.
November 28, 2016 at 5:55 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
“You are such a little baby. Every little kid thinks that they are the tolerant one, and you saw these cliche phrases while I spell out legality issues.”
Should ready *Say* not saw.
This is old. I am tired of this argument and it’s precisely why I kick your ass.
You tell everyone here that is a conservative in your eyes, that they are judgmental not tolerant, are prone to bigotry and hate gays.
Yeah, we conservatives totally will play nice with you, and this is exactly why politics don’t work in the white house either, because your compadres in office do the same damn thing.
Mr. Sessions as Tolerance pointed out actually tried a person who killed a black teen. What he left out is why Mr. Sessions was called racist. One man said he was called boy, and even every other associate in the office said he was always respectful and said no such thing. The other, which is important and you should see why, is that Mr. Sessions was mocking racism.
He said about a black man that was murdered, that the KKK murder issue was fine, it was just that pesky marijuana!
Anyone would have known what he meant, and liberals would have said it if they were pissed off at the people being tried more for marijuana usage than for murder. He was rejected becoming a supreme court nominee, and guess who railed him on it Ron?
They called him Joseph at the time, it is weird watching that in present day tv. Who has a name type of Joseph Ron? JOE BIDEN. That’s right.
Mr Sessions is a good man and people like you, decrying racism and shit brought him down.
Stop calling people who are not bigoted, bigoted. Stop calling common sense in laws being against gays.
Brat.
November 21, 2016 at 4:29 pm
Agent says:
Like or Dislike:
4
3
Hey Ron, I believe you gave the current POTUS a free pass for about 8 years while he was busy ruining the country. All you ever said was that you disagreed with “some” of his policies. How about giving the man a chance? You might even like seeing what is going on the first 100 days of the administration. Can’t get here soon enough to suit me!
First, how can you say I gave him a free pass then confirm that I have disagreed with some of his policies? Do you not understand the meaning of “free pass”?
Second, I have stated multiple times that I am willing to give our new president a fair chance. That is much more than you were willing to give our current president.
If I like what I see, I will state as much. However, if he governs like he campaigned, I will judge him accordingly. That is how this works.
November 21, 2016 at 2:13 pm
DePolarBearables says:
Like or Dislike:
2
3
He posts these things that are OPINIONS, such as the OPINION that Trump should ALWAYS adhere to his past actions and principles in light of current facts and details.
If you were driving down a straight road and firmly believed in that principle of driving straight, what would you do when you came upon a curve in the road overlooking a cliff?
Ron is making specious arguments, AGAIN, rather than trying to Make America Great, Again.
We’ll see. What would you define as a SIGNIFICANT political issue? You already have shown that you are willing to disregard fraudulent behavior that cost innocent victims thousands of dollars, and forgiven him for going back on his words and principles. I guess those actions and character traits are not significant to you.
DePolar, Yogi Berra said when you reach a fork in the road, take it. America is taking the “right” fork instead of the “left” fork and for the betterment of the country.
Innocent people turn over $25 million just for kicks all of the time.
Just keep blindly supporting this con man.
Of course they were compensated. They were swindled by a fraud.
November 22, 2016 at 1:24 pm
DePolarBearables says:
Like or Dislike:
1
2
I’m sure you’ve worked with claim people in the past.
Seek help from one such person in explaining to you the utility and efficiency of settling void-of-merit claims for ‘chump change’ and the defendant’s concern over a radical jury pool.
From this point forward, you will be arguing with yourself, as I refuse to get baited into discussing your inane ideas as to the implication of a settlement of a nuisance suit for a walking wad of Benjamins (‘chump change’). I wouldn’t be surprised if he was willing to settle for more, but was happy to hear such a low figure to ‘close the door’.
November 22, 2016 at 2:30 pm
Ron says:
Like or Dislike:
1
1
I fully understand the economic merits of settling to minimize the financial harm of a large judgment. That is, if you know you would lose in a trial.
Problem here is that settling this particular case he is already going against his word and principles. You cannot argue that fact.
November 22, 2016 at 3:39 pm
Confused says:
Like or Dislike:
2
1
“There was NO ADMISSION OF GUILT in the settlement agreement.”
Wrong
“The settlement includes a $1 million penalty paid to New York state for violating the state’s education laws by calling the program a “university” despite offering no degrees or traditional education.“
November 28, 2016 at 3:14 pm
Bob says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Oh wow, they used a bad naming scheme.
How immoral, the horror.
Even if they had admitted wrong doing, it would only be because the government forced it.
What you just put I was not aware of, so good information, but the fact that you are digesting this as a bad thing for Trump, instead of how over reaching the government has become, is the bigger issue.
November 22, 2016 at 8:04 am
DePolarBearables says:
Like or Dislike:
2
2
These are different circumstances. He has a full time job other than running Trump Enterprises now. If he didn’t, he could have allowed the litigation to continue to a point where the plaintiffs bent or broke.
He did what was best for this Nation. He is preparing to MAGA.
“Repeal and replace on day one, that much I can tell you. Believe me” – Drumpf – reality – not even in his 100 first days.
“Going to appoint a special prosecutor to investigate HRC” – Drumpf – reality – not going to pursue any investigation of HRC
Wall paid for by Mexico? He’s already talking about perhaps a fence or a “virtual fence”. HA! And, again, not mentioned in his first 100 days.
Where is this blind trust he promised, too? The guy can’t go longer than 3 minutes without lying. I said I’d point out the good things and I have. I also said I will be critical, and I am. We have white nationalists chanting “hail Trump” and the KKK is going to be holding their victory rally in December. Where are his tweets about this? Instead, he’s busy tweeting about SNL and “Hamilton”. Pence wasn’t even offended and it wasn’t harassment, it was a conversation. Oh wait, Drumpf doesn’t really believe in the First Amendment.
Drumpf voters, you’ve been grifted. He just pulled The Big Con. He puts the ‘con’ in conservative. Face it, you were duped!
I have a feeling we will not be hearing much rational defending of President Trump after his 1st 100 days. However, there will be a lot of blaming the Democrats when he is not accomplishing what he promised. Just a prediction.
November 22, 2016 at 1:11 pm
Captain Planet says:
Like or Dislike:
2
1
I agree, Ron. They will be yelling Democratic obstruction. The fact is, that is what the Republicans decided to do on day 1 of President Obama’s first term when they met at The Caucus Room restaurant. The truth is, Republicans just don’t like governing much.
November 21, 2016 at 1:24 pm
Captain Planet says:
Hot debate. What do you think?
13
7
Imagine Hannity and Faux News if the same were true of HRC. Paid out $25M in fraud and racketeering a couple months ahead of taking oath. Add to this, losing the popular vote by what is now 1.5M votes and is likely to be closer to 2M. Add to that the whole FBI and Russian influence on the election. Yogi and Agent would be losing their minds. They’d be saying HRC needs to do the right thing and stand down, allow Kaine to take office. Keep shining that light on the hypocrisy, Drumpf! When will the buyer’s remorse kick in?
Another specious scenario to support another issue. This is akin to a Straw Man Argument, but distinctions exist between the two.
No one would allow Clinton an ‘out’ to facing the music for her VERY SERIOUS, CRIMINAL ACTIONS re: Pay for Play, and Felonious destruction and concealment of government documents, in conjunction with felonious establishment of a private system to hold top secret documents on a vulnerable to hacking server.
“Super-delegates”, more commonly known as Electoral College Electors, will decide who will take the oath of office on 1/20/17.
Be sure to watch when the ECEs vote in mid-December.
Those 2M – 3M Illegal Immigrants, who were encouraged to vote by Obama – with his promise of no legal repercussions – will be frustrated that their Illegal efforts to elect HRC have all gone for naught… except in the erroneous totals that liberals continue to claim are more relevant than the EC system.
I wonder when members of the Liberal Mainstream Media are going to get around to asking Bernie Sanders whether he prefers the DNC’s Super Delegate system or a ‘popular vote’ method?
Sore Loser Liberals(to ECE’s): “vote for HRC or die!”
Sounds like a dictatorship to me. North Korea or Cuba or Venezuela could be used as parallels, where ‘elections’ result in 99.995% of votes for the dictator, and .005% of the votes are cast by people who are not long for this world.
Planet, don’t forget purging hundreds of thousands of voters from the voting rolls, often illegally, in swing states. Their only “principles” are not wanting to pay taxes, wanting a free ride, and supporting Republicans no matter what.
Gerrymandering could be proven and could be ruled illegal by a high court, even SCOTUS.
Why hasn’t any of that happened?
November 23, 2016 at 8:05 pm
DePolarBearables says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Psst; whatever the number of polling places, there are sufficient places to vote when you consider mail in absentee ballots – if you are “too far from a polling place”.
But, please explain how many of the count you presented are causing PROVEN disenfranchisement, and why NO ONE has filed a lawsuit.
November 21, 2016 at 6:00 pm
DePolarBearables says:
Like or Dislike:
1
3
Link to INDEPENDENTLY AUDITED list of US voters purged from state voter rolls? I assume you have such a list, which has totals by state, and by the (prior) voter’s party of registration.
I’m sorry, but I MUST HAVE FORGOTTEN about that ‘purge’. That’s odd because I otherwise have a very good memory.
Maybe what you consider a very good memory is abject stupidity clouded by an addled brain and thought process. Same story was all over, like I said, and in some places their stated intention months ago was to swing the election by removing legal voters. Do you have a problem with this, or are you 100% against democracy?
That was nothing more than a last minute ruing by the judge.
Let us know the eventual outcome of the decision to purge invalid registrations.
November 23, 2016 at 12:21 pm
DePolarBearables says:
Like or Dislike:
1
1
should be ‘ruling’, not ‘ruing’.
November 23, 2016 at 12:23 pm
DePolarBearables says:
Like or Dislike:
1
1
PS let us know the FINAL vote counts in NC.
And, also let us know the MEANINGLESS popular vote counts across the Nation, preferably on the day of the ECE vote in mid December.
November 23, 2016 at 12:31 pm
Ron says:
Like or Dislike:
1
0
DePolarBearables,
You are a piece of work. You ask for something, it is provided, and then you summarily disregard it. If that is what you are going to do with the facts that you request, please stop asking for them.
November 23, 2016 at 1:20 pm
UW says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Ron, piece of work is one way to say it, despicable, ignorant, POS is what I prefer. No evidence will ever be enough, which is why people should resort to mocking, derision, and treating people like this like the jokes they are.
Yogi, idiot, since you stated in another thread you do not believe Clinton is ahead in the popular vote, even you must realize that would mean, that by your logic – and I use that term very loosely with you – the election was illegitimate, Trump is not rightfully the president, and something must be done. Right?
November 23, 2016 at 8:07 pm
DePolarBearables says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
@Ron and UW;
The link provided simply stated that the law was temporarily reversed too close to the election to be litigated and sustained.
voter registrations suspended then re-instated: 3,500 to 4,000.
To quote Hillary Clinton; “What difference, at this point, does it make?”
I read the article linked. It is UNSETTLED as to whether or not the cancelled voter registrations will be sustained or whether the last minute appeal will stand.
However, the purge of the registrations FOLLOWED state election laws. And, any reference to PRIOR actions is irrelevant and non-admissible in this case, in court.
You’re both grasping at straws while holding out hope that SOMETHING will reverse the nightmare you’re experiencing as a result of you supporting a crook who lost.
November 23, 2016 at 8:28 pm
DePolarBearables says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Unintended consequence of this action in NC: if fraud is detected, McCrory (R) may eventually end up winning while he currently trails by a few thousand votes. Oops!
November 22, 2016 at 3:53 pm
Conserving the Truth says:
Like or Dislike:
3
1
UW,
Two things: first, although there was some suspicious activity I doubt the election would have gone HRC’s way even if “swaying” didn’t take part. That doesn’t make it right but I think we can agree that this election was so utterly disgusting in how things were done by both parties that in the end it’s not a matter of who was worse but more so, “let’s make sure nothing like this ever happens again”. Second, do yourself a favor and do not present DePolarBearables with facts. My fellow conservative has a very, very hard time accepting facts and I know his life would be a lot less stressful if you just hid certain truths from him. Thank you!
Even if that were true, one should always present facts.
Also, Depolar just made very good points in response to UW, with facts.
And you didn’t. You said the same basic thing without facts. Depolar gave numbers.
Sometimes Depolor acts like an idiot, but this doesn’t make depolar completely against facts.
It’s a bit belligerent, but is not a reason to then take away facts. I don’t believe in ever treating a human the way you just said.
Facts go above feelings, not whether or not there is stress and conflict and bantering due to facts.
If someone I know held a fact from me because they were worried I would be ticked off and questioned it (even if I was initially wrong) I wouldn’t befriend that person and would remove them.
If someone yelled at me a fact, trying to change my mind but was over charged, I would keep them close. They would be the type of friend that would encourage my growth.
To Trump critics who will say this is admission of liability and fault, please read CAREFULLY the section of the ARTICLE that is headed with “Real Money”. Pay particular attention to the 2nd and 3rd paragraphs.
The purpose of the settlement is to move away from this distraction in exchange for “pocket/ chump change”, to Make America Rule-of-Law-Abiding and Great Again.
Thank you for your attention to this important announcement and lesson in executive management concepts.
FYI that the settlement includes payment of up to $1M in penalties to the State of New York. Does not sound law abiding…
NY had to get its hands on some of the money when it saw an opportunity. That does not indicate law breaking. Please state where you see such.
The statement from the New York Attorney General (link below) says “Donald Trump will pay up to $1 million in penalties to the State of New York for violating state education laws.” I think where the Attorney General says “violating state education laws” it means “violating state education laws.” Typically, penalties are only paid to state AGs when a law has been broken.
http://www.ag.ny.gov/press-release/statement-ag-schneiderman-25-million-settlement-agreement-reached-trump-university
You don’t know much about the government if you believe that last bit.
And on this matter it was a matter of a name. That is not a serious offense of any type. If our government is wasting time on that, and spending millions of dollars to prosecute Trump, it reflects badly on them, rather than Trump.
Wow, cognitive dissonance at it’s finest. So paying more than most people could ever pay in a fraud suit reflects positively on the person paying it, and poorly on the government. What a joke. Oh, you didn’t say it was positive, so I’m sure you think he was guilty, but should have got more than a slap on the wrist, right?
DePolarBearables,
Nice to see that you are condoning someone for going against his word and principles.
He settled because he knows he was going to lose, period.
Neither he nor anyone involved in his administration needed to be part of the lawsuit outside of testifying for a few hours. That would not have detracted him from completing a thorough transition into his presidency.
Stop making excuses for this fraud and con man.
Ron, one time Yogi said if he paid for courses here it would not have been fraud, because he’s smart and would have understood the material. He doesn’t understand the course itself is the fraud.
Also, Yogi, hypocritical idiot, he paid because if he went to trial and was found guilty he could be impeached, same if he testified, since he lies on average every 3 minutes and would then be open to perjury charges, and impeachment. Don’t dismiss that he also knows his supporters are rubes that will just repeat whatever he says so there is little negative effect for paying a fortune in a fraud case. He should be in prison, but there are no consequences for anything conservatives do.
HAHAHAHAHAHA.
No. And even if he were, the government errs on the side of guilty, not innocent, for businesses. I have seen this personally. I have seen people lose or settle because the cost to defend is too high.
If you operate under the assumption being in INSURANCE thinking that most people settle due to guilt, you’re a fool.
How much do you even know about settlements in the insurance industry? I would argue the vast MAJORITY of settled claims are NOT due to someone being guilty but instead costs and damaged image for larger firms.
You realize this was not an insurance settlement, right? He is the one who said he would win the case. Maybe it is just him going against his own word…again.
Yes. It is a COURT settlement, per agreement of Trump’s lawyers on his behalf.
So, what’s your point?
He still could have won. Too expensive and time consuming to do so, and ALWAYS subject to the possibility of a biased jury.
My point is that he went against his own word and principles. What part of that do you not understand?
If the reason to settle is because it is too expensive and time consuming, they would have settled years ago to save money and time.
In my opinion, he was most likely advised by his legal team that he would not win the case, and a judgment against a president-elect or sitting president for fraud would not look good for him in his re-election bid.
Unfortunately, we will never know for certain.
“My point is that he went against his own word and principles. What part of that do you not understand?”
And you call us conservatives judgemental. You are predicting based on your observation of his personality what would be normal for Trump.
Perhaps years ago he thought he could win, and perhaps now, it became clear he couldn’t? I have seen many a supposed “arrogant” from your point of view I’m sure, businessmen walk in thinking they can win.
Also, what do you know about trials? They set a date out and it gets drawn out to the point of YEARS before anyone would have any idea of whether a case is going to be settled. Recently, the government decided in a political move that the Trump University case needed to start progress before the election. I would call that by the way, the government trying to shut Trump down. Just as a side comment, if you didn’t realize that was political, you’re a fool.
Now, within a few months of that, Trump settled.
Perhaps it became evident that the government wasn’t going to quit on it, it could damage his company image, and, that he no longer was safe in winning?
But instead, the jackass you are, you weigh his supposed normal actions (you over zealous prick, I don’t like it when democrats do it, I don’t like it when republicans like agent do it, it’s over zealous Ron, and I will see you admit it!) and you claim because reasons and what not, that you’ve figured out Trump must be guilty because now he’s suddenly settling and that isn’t in his character.
You sound like my senile mother talking about my sister’s boyfriends motivations back in the day. It’s stupid as hell Ron. You have no self reflection though…
Bob,
Since when is holding a man to his word and principles being over zealous? It is called accountability. He is the one who said he could win the case easily, not me. He is the one who said he never settles, not me.
The government was not suing him, private citizens were.
Get a clue or stop posting your garbage defenses of this fraudulent snake-oil salesman.
“Since when is holding a man to his word and principles being over zealous? It is called accountability. He is the one who said he could win the case easily, not me. He is the one who said he never settles, not me.”
When you start making up what his principles are, and then say he’s against them, because he settled a case when he found that he should. Being paranoid with things like this, you didn’t do with Obama. And when he said he could, and he should, he thought he could and he should, but the government happens to over reach a lot. I have personally thought and seen, that a firm would be fine, who was fined for something they NEVER should have been. And they thought they were fine and they did the same thing with regards to saying what they said. It’s called being upset about something being unfair.
“The government was not suing him, private citizens were.”
Private citizens who are saying they didn’t realize they were not in a University? This fine is a government fine due to an absurd regulation. Also, just because you made a bad choice and didn’t have a pay off from it, doesn’t mean Trump was bad.
“Get a clue or stop posting your garbage defenses of this fraudulent snake-oil salesman.”
I don’t have to like his actions to dislike government over reach, or to find the people who did the suit particularly stupid and immoral. If you buy something designed to show you how to make money, and you don’t live up to your end of following it, it’s your own fault. I have seen so called get rich quick schemes, but I don’t find them to be snake salesmen. They are people who are trying to make a living, and if people for example with the Mary Kay make up sales succeed then good. If they fail then bad. I see these two things as no different, except there is a much higher risk to reward ratio with Trumps classes.
You are looking to find problems and immorality, because you start with the perception of immorality, like when he backs off the case. That is your flaw.
If you’re not here to think on your own, don’t post.
“And you call us conservatives judgemental. You are predicting based on your observation of his personality what would be normal for Trump.”
No, you ignorant piece of crap, he is going by exactly what Trump has stated for decades, and on the campaign trail.
You are so willing to explain away anything any conservative does, it is astounding and disturbing. You literally have no free will, or ability to think for yourself on any topic. Trump did this because if he had a trial during his presidency he would be under oath, and would face perjury charges in a fraud trial, which would be an impeachable offense.
Also, this is the case where he clearly bribed Bondi to drop the case, another impeachable offense. This is worth the money to pay for him, because it was not being handled by a partisan hack he could just give a job to in order to make it go away.
Hi, Mr. Mind-reader.
Please tell us all what Warren Buffet, Trump, Bill Gates are thinking right now.
It is not mind reading, I am just taking him at his word and past actions. Donald Trump does not settle if he can win. That has been proven over time.
Why are you giving him a pass and making excuses for him?
All of the evidence points to him losing this lawsuit. Even he finally recognized that. Why won’t you.
Let me re-phrase my point so it’s easier for you to comprehend.
Trump settled to ‘move onto with more important things’. There is NO admission of guilt or law breaking implied.
Legal costs would EASILY exceed the settlement amount if the trial dragged on an kept Trump from his duties as PresidenTrump.
PresidenTrump is doing the most cost efficient and time efficient thing by settling. His lawyers advised him of the consequences of prolonged litigation while he serves as PresidenTrump.
For a real life example, consider Obama taking vacations multiple times in a year. That kept him from doing work as POTUS and fixing problems with ACA, civil relations, illegal immigration, the economy, jobs, foreign policy, etc. Oh, wait! Obama in the Oval Office with a pen and phone is actually a bad thing for American citizens who pull the wagon, and for our foreign allies. Give me a few minutes to think of a better example.
He could have settled this years ago, prior to campaigning, or even before the election that he said he was going to win. The timing makes no sense if his reason was time management or saving legal costs.
This was fraud, plain and simple. If you choose to be naive and blind about it, for what ever reason, then so be it.
For the record, the POTUS is NEVER on vacation. They are 24/7, 365. That is why I never criticized President GW Bush for taking the most “vacation” time as any president. Like facts might actually matter to you.
http://www.factcheck.org/2014/08/presidential-vacations/
@Ron;
This is a SETTLEMENT, and NOT A JUDGEMENT – as you claim in your declarations of fraud, guilt, corruption, etc.
So, now that THIS issue has ended favorably for Trump, you can move on to other criticisms of PresidenTrump that will ultimately fail. Please do so, as I need to read something amusing this afternoon.
There was only one way I, and tens of millions of Americans would believe his innocence, and that is if a jury found in his favor, period. He decided to minimize the damage of his fraudulent “university”, and that is his choice. But choices have consequences. In this case, tens of millions of people will always see him as a swindler. Settling never fixes that.
I understand that some Liberals only follow laws that favor their agenda.
Innocent until proven guilty is a crutch for Libbies when they are arrested and prosecuted. But it is invalid when someone settles a CIVIL action if that litigant holds and opposing viewpoint.
I get it. Liberals can’t win, so they change the rules mid-game. Example: Super-delegates; OK. Electoral College; not ok.
First, I am not a Liberal.
Second, please cite when I have ever changed my position on a topic based on results. If you can’t, stop lying.
“First, I am not a Liberal.
Second, please cite when I have ever changed my position on a topic based on results. If you can’t, stop lying.”
Yes you are. Just because you call yourself independent does not mean you are not liberal. Liberal can be a political association, but most of the time, it is referring to a mindset. You are clearly liberal.
Do you even know how lawsuits work? Why would he settle the lawsuit before being scheduled to appear in court? Until that time you don’t know your odds of winning.
And further to the point,
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/campaign-2016-donald-trump-trial-date-set-in-trump-university-lawsuit/
This trial date was set in May. That means it was likely going on for years, but how much do you pay attention in your field? Are you in insurance?
From when a claim is reported, how long does it take to get to court, and from there to close?
Are you just this stupid? What field of insurance are you in?
You are basically looking for reasons to get pissed off at Trump, whereas in the past you would call these types of things ludicrous with Obama.
Also, if the name of the company is the only reason they are being fined, I think it shows this is a trivial law suit.
Also I will add, that if there was sleaze going on at Trump University, you would need to show Trump intended for the company to operate that way.
Many times Trump puts his name on something, and lets others lead it. It can indeed be a recipe for disaster, but it doesn’t make Trump complicity immoral for Trump University’s actions any more than if some Trump Steaks were butchered improperly by butchers wrecklessly cutting corners to extract more beef form dangerous areas of the animal and people got sick thinking they were buying high quality Trump steak.
And his definition of win in this circumstance is not to keep it going through his campaign.
The settling was not admitting guilt.
ALL the evidence pointed to Hillary’s guilt in multiple treasonous actions for personal and political gain; e.g. several foreign nations and entities have begun to withdraw from The Clinton Foundation because ‘paying’ won’t get ‘playing by Clinton, to their benefit’. Nothing is simpler to understand than that.
Taking your approach, can I assume she is guilty without a full trial?
Let me know ASAP, so I can begin using that powerful ‘trump’ card.
So, when all evidence points to Trump University being a fraud, you will not call him guilty, but will state Hillary Clinton is guilty.
Interesting.
By the way, has she been indicted and taken a plea bargain yet? If that were to happen, I would see her as guilty.
Any other questions?
State security that Hillary definitely violated, we have the emails which were marked classified at the time of sending,
We have law precedent showing we don’t tolerate this even by mistake (a military man was recently in huge trouble for having pictures of a submarine on his phone)
And you compare that, to a kangaroo court case that the government is in progress with Trump on an absurd government issue in terms of business?
Just looking at the claims of the Trump university, some people were satisfied, and some people were not.
It sounds to me like they paid a lot of money and then didn’t succeed and got mad.
By the way, FALSE EQUIVALENCY.
It does not make one a hypocrite to call someone innocent on this case, and to call it less severe than Hillary.
You sound like a snot nosed brat. Almost all your comments are “You’re not being fair” “you’re being a hypocrite” we we we we we.
Shut up kid. Maybe people have their reasons for believing things, and the second you say this it’s just you being a jack ass.
If you want to debate the facts, fine, but to call someone a biased person for holding someone accountable, because they don’t hold one you find accountable accountable, well…You’re just an idiot.
Testifying for a ‘few hours’ wouldn’t bother him.
Can you quote a source, such as the plaintiff’s attorney, who promised this time restriction for depositions or court testimony?
If not, stop lying, because you will be caught in your pretzel of non-truths made to support a specious argument.
DePolarBearables,
You are right, I do not know how long his testimony may take.
However, I will stand by my statement that this is clear evidence that Donald Trump goes against his own words and principles.
“Do you know that almost everybody in the lawsuit has signed a letter saying how great the school was? That’s why I won’t settle because it’s an easy case to win in court,”
“I don’t settle lawsuits, probably should have settled it, but I just can’t do that. Mentally I can’t do it. I’d rather spend a lot more money and fight it.”
“Trump University has a 98% approval rating. I could have settled but won’t out of principle!”
“The phony lawsuit against Trump U could have been easily settled by me but I want to go to court. 98% approval rating by students. Easy win”
“I don’t settle cases,” Trump said. “I don’t do it because that’s why I don’t get sued very often, because I don’t settle, unlike a lot of other people.”
These are of his words, not mine.
Ron,
I don’t know why you post these facts. Don’t you know by now DePolarBearables has literally no interest in the truth. His true agenda is spreading hate through fear mongering and proving that “his” President can’t be wrong. Let me(again, I voted for Trump) be the one to say it: settling out of court is essentially an admission of guilt. Anyone who has read about Trump University knows it was a scam. That being said it doesn’t mean automatically mean he is going to scam our country. I have a hard time believing Trump’s involvement with TU was anything beyond his name. Someone with a business record as substantial as his WILL have some failures.
Conserving the Truth,
Fair enough. Thank you for your reasonableness.
I am on the record as saying that I am willing to give him a chance as our president. However, unlike DePolarBearables, I will not give him a free pass.
Failures are fine. My problem is his inherent inability to take responsibility and apologize when he does fail. That needs to change if he wants to unite the country.
Trump wasn’t my top choice among Republican candidates.
I will not give him a free pass on anything that is a SIGNIFICANT political issue.
Please try to avoid mistaken assumptions about me that sidetrack me from my current activities, to refute them.
Ron,
I don’t know what to believe anymore. Have you read about Jeff Sessions? Some say he is a known racist but the facts say he prosecuted and had a leader of the Alabama chapter of the KKK executed for murdering a BLACK teen. I voted Trump because I feel our political system needs to be shaken to its core. The only way to impose change is to force it. You can’t wait. You can’t hope. Trump, albeit scary in some regards, is also viewed as a breath of fresh air for many who never felt they were heard by their politicians. The sad truth, though, is a decent amount of those who voted for Trump feel that the only way to make American “great again” is to reduce the rights and liberties of those they deem “unfit” to exist in the U.S. — people of color, minorities, gays, etc. I want all non-conservatives on this blog to know that being a conservative does not automatically make one racist or morally obtuse. Unfortunately, it seems the two main representatives for the Republican party on this blog (Agent, DePolar) are so extreme in their views that they feel the need to constantly degrade, belittle and demean anyone who doesn’t share their EXACT views. I don’t remember where but I saw one of them literally say (and im paraphrasing, give me a break) “WE WON’T COMPROMISE WITH LIBERAL SOCIALIST”. ARE YOU KIDDING ME??? Look, Ron, economically you and I may not agree on much but one thing I think we can agree on is that things are broken. Since Agent and DePolar won’t extend an olive branch I will. And to everyone else here – a line needs to be drawn. There is so much filth here. So much hatred. People need to swallow their pride and realize the difference between accepting and tolerating something. I do not accept two men getting married, however, I do tolerate it. It is not my business. It is not my job to impose my beliefs on others. Same to all of you. I truly fear for the future of our country. The result of this election is worse than I could have intended. If we cannot create peace here how will the country ever create peace? W
Conserving the Truth,
Very well said. Actually, I am fiscally conservative. My issue with the Republican party are two-fold. First, their positions on social issues. How can we have a free country when people cannot live their lives free of oppression? I am not talking about the Black Lives Matter movement in particular, more about; the freedom for 2 consenting adults to enter into the same contract as 2 other consenting adults, the freedom to use a plant for medicinal and/or recreational purposes, the freedom to make choices regarding one’s own body, the freedom to exercise one’s beliefs or the lack thereof, etc.
Second, their failure to actually exercise fiscal restraint when they have held the purse strings.
I have several friends and family members who are Conservatives and I respect their positions. Even if I do not agree with all of them.
Ron,
I suppose I would be considered a new school conservative. I have no problem with equal rights for ALL. Gay, black, trans, Muslims…it means nothing to me. I feel that many Republicans are stuck on “well, the Bible says…” but here is the thing: WE ARE NOT A COUNTRY DICTATED BY A SINGLE RELIGION. People hug their constitution so tight but tend to forget about something called SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE. A true Conservative understands individual liberties. Those who look down on gays/Muslims/etc will be viewed as harshly as those who looked down upon blacks in the mid 1900s. I have always believed the ultimate value of conservatism was sustaining oneself and their family. Why intrude on others? Why care? It is so ironic to me that they fear socialism (which they should) but also believe something like abortion should be outlawed. It is basically saying, “I want to control you in some aspects of life while completely ignoring you in others”. The truth is (and I don’t think they see it) Trump is the end of Republicanism as they know it. Again, my vote for him was to assist completely destroying our two party system as we know it. Things will never be the same and that was the goal.
AFTER a post like that, you should use the moniker Contorting the Truth.
“Conserving the Truth,
Very well said. Actually, I am fiscally conservative.”
No you’re not. You have said in the name of “fairness” you would like to give two higher earning gay couples tax advantages. This is both socially and fiscally conservative. It is but one example. Also, you seem to support throwing fiscal restraint to the wind with regards to Syrian Refugees.
“My issue with the Republican party are two-fold. First, their positions on social issues.”
Name one. You haven’t to date, other than possibly abortion which is patently absurd.
“How can we have a free country when people cannot live their lives free of oppression? I am not talking about the Black Lives Matter movement in particular, more about; the freedom for 2 consenting adults to enter into the same contract as 2 other consenting adults, the freedom to use a plant for medicinal and/or recreational purposes, the freedom to make choices regarding one’s own body, the freedom to exercise one’s beliefs or the lack thereof, etc.”
2 consenting adults is a fake argument, and they are not entitled to the same contract we give to heterosexual couples, which was written specifically with them in mind. Freedom to use medicinal plants remember How Gingrich was for legalizing pot? Republicans and democrats are equally for and against this. Freedom to make choices regarding your body does not include a new growing life. And when you mentioned exercising their beliefs, I noticed that was generalized and not specific with an example of where that was infringed.
“Second, their failure to actually exercise fiscal restraint when they have held the purse strings.”
Proven wrong in my many posts, showing Reagan’s proposed cuts, the 1995 congress proposed cuts that caused 2 shut downs, and the fact that inclusive of their spending on the Iraq war, the Bush W era politicians had a deficit that as a percent of GDP was much smaller than Obama and the democrat replacements. I don’t use spending as a percent of debt because Obama paid money to lower interest rates, which makes his spending interest not show up for a while. If we go by annual deficits and spending, 3 of Obama’s years were over a Trillion specifically due to spending whereas only one of George W’s was, and that was also due to a recession making it worse. All his other years were well within reasonable years while republicans had control of congress until 2006. They were all much better. The CBO mentioned how much Reagan’s plan would cut compared to Carter’s budget going forward, and it was massive. The 95 republican cuts were massive. And the spending increase from the 2001-2006 republicans to Bush W were all massively less than the 2007 to 2009 democrat congress, and then followed by the 2009-2012 spending splurge where Obama got exactly what he wanted (QE, Stimulus, etc)
“I have several friends and family members who are Conservatives and I respect their positions. Even if I do not agree with all of them”
You specifically are not conservative due to this I’ve noticed. What a rebel. We can’t call you moderate, you’re independent and special after all, and smarter than everyone else to boot, including your step father you mocked when he criticized a program’s wasteful spending because he had rightfully been on it. But you thought he was a hypocrite for not wanting leeching.
You even insult your step father with this bull crap false equivalency.
No you’re not. You have said in the name of “fairness” you would like to give two higher earning gay couples tax advantages. This is both socially and fiscally conservative. It is but one example. Also, you seem to support throwing fiscal restraint to the wind with regards to Syrian Refugees. ”
Should read both socially and fiscally fake conservative. Or liberal. Your choice.
People like you are more damaging than agent. At least he doesn’t try to make himself seem like a perfect guy living in a world where everyone else is an idiot.
You don’t have things figured out. Do more research and stop talking in ideological horse crap terms, talk in bills and spending and how it happened, who got what they wanted in spending, who didn’t, what the actual deficits were, why debt as a GDP didn’t raise as fast during the low interest rates and why that means if you want to look at spending you don’t look at debt as a percent of GDP, etc.
“There is so much filth here. So much hatred. People need to swallow their pride and realize the difference between accepting and tolerating something. I do not accept two men getting married, however, I do tolerate it. It is not my business. It is not my job to impose my beliefs on others.”
This is some serious next level conflation.
No one here has said anything about gay marriage in an intolerant way, other than possibly agent, and even that I’m not sure. From my recollection he may have said he finds it perverted, but that is not any different than you based on what you just said.
I have made a point of stating that the gay rights issue is a matter of government intervention and balancing religious freedoms with personal. The liberals here are why you are defensively extending an olive branch while saying you’re an accepting conservative. You’re being an apologist for being conservative, because of what other conservatives do. You have no need. I’m partially lecturing you and partially defending you here if you didn’t notice.
I’m also defending conservatism, as the majority of people against the “gay rights” issues are against what I would call “gay force”.
My father was a very devout religious man. His brother was gay. My father talked about gay issues a lot. He also expressed he found it to be morally wrong. He never lectured his brother about it. And more importantly, whenever he had a problem with a law, it was to do with school issues (teaching of morality in the school system where it has no place) and or laws that shut down Catholic adoption agencies.
It happened in Canada first and he saw it coming here well in advance.
There is a clear attack on religions and the U.S. is doing somewhat better than the rest of the 1st world countries, but it is still there and needs to be balanced.
In these nations that did this, in Canada for example, there are places you cannot be Catholic and a government official, and this comes from the fact that if you didn’t know this, the King and Queen of England are not allowed to be Catholic. There was a war between the families, and then they basically modified their government system that no one can be Catholic and a king or queen. Whether the family that did that was oppressive, or the one that took over, the fact remains that ever since then England, and the nations that stayed in England’s power (Canada) remained extremely hostile to religion, and our founding fathers were trying to do away with that. That is what most conservatives stand for today. Laws that do not control religion.
Bob,
You said, “No one here has said anything about gay marriage in an intolerant way, other than possibly agent, and even that I’m not sure.”
The fact that you do not believe 2 consenting adults of the same gender may not enter into a legal contract because of your own religious beliefs, shows your intolerance.
All people really need to stop telling other people whether or not they are being tolerated, offended, discriminated against, or oppressed without walking a mile in their shoes. That lack of empathy is what is truly causing the divide in this country
“Bob,
You said, “No one here has said anything about gay marriage in an intolerant way, other than possibly agent, and even that I’m not sure.”
“The fact that you do not believe 2 consenting adults of the same gender may not enter into a legal contract because of your own religious beliefs, shows your intolerance.”‘
Oh my God, you’re a liar and at this point I know you are. We have had this debate, there is no way you don’t know my position on this matter. I have said that people who are gay, should be able to have a law tailored to them, in order to avoid the problems that come with porting over same sex marriage to current marriage law.
“All people really need to stop telling other people whether or not they are being tolerated, offended, discriminated against, or oppressed without walking a mile in their shoes. That lack of empathy is what is truly causing the divide in this country”
You are such a little baby. Every little kid thinks that they are the tolerant one, and you saw these cliche phrases while I spell out legality issues.
Every time you fall back to this.
You are moral! Forgiving! Understanding! Tolerant! It’s just us pesky conservatives!
And you call us self righteous. Let me be clear: I have never taken a position on gay marriage as a matter of biblical morality. Not once.
And you’re damn well aware of it. This is precisely why I call you a liar and a fraud, what you just did here I believe was intentional, either that or it was some serious self gloating, so strong you forgot my positions, in order to feel special.
At which point you’re not worth my time buddy. Ya ain’t special kid. Get over it.
“You are such a little baby. Every little kid thinks that they are the tolerant one, and you saw these cliche phrases while I spell out legality issues.”
Should ready *Say* not saw.
This is old. I am tired of this argument and it’s precisely why I kick your ass.
You tell everyone here that is a conservative in your eyes, that they are judgmental not tolerant, are prone to bigotry and hate gays.
Yeah, we conservatives totally will play nice with you, and this is exactly why politics don’t work in the white house either, because your compadres in office do the same damn thing.
Mr. Sessions as Tolerance pointed out actually tried a person who killed a black teen. What he left out is why Mr. Sessions was called racist. One man said he was called boy, and even every other associate in the office said he was always respectful and said no such thing. The other, which is important and you should see why, is that Mr. Sessions was mocking racism.
He said about a black man that was murdered, that the KKK murder issue was fine, it was just that pesky marijuana!
Anyone would have known what he meant, and liberals would have said it if they were pissed off at the people being tried more for marijuana usage than for murder. He was rejected becoming a supreme court nominee, and guess who railed him on it Ron?
They called him Joseph at the time, it is weird watching that in present day tv. Who has a name type of Joseph Ron? JOE BIDEN. That’s right.
Mr Sessions is a good man and people like you, decrying racism and shit brought him down.
Stop calling people who are not bigoted, bigoted. Stop calling common sense in laws being against gays.
Brat.
Hey Ron, I believe you gave the current POTUS a free pass for about 8 years while he was busy ruining the country. All you ever said was that you disagreed with “some” of his policies. How about giving the man a chance? You might even like seeing what is going on the first 100 days of the administration. Can’t get here soon enough to suit me!
Agent,
First, how can you say I gave him a free pass then confirm that I have disagreed with some of his policies? Do you not understand the meaning of “free pass”?
Second, I have stated multiple times that I am willing to give our new president a fair chance. That is much more than you were willing to give our current president.
If I like what I see, I will state as much. However, if he governs like he campaigned, I will judge him accordingly. That is how this works.
He posts these things that are OPINIONS, such as the OPINION that Trump should ALWAYS adhere to his past actions and principles in light of current facts and details.
If you were driving down a straight road and firmly believed in that principle of driving straight, what would you do when you came upon a curve in the road overlooking a cliff?
Ron is making specious arguments, AGAIN, rather than trying to Make America Great, Again.
DePolarBearables,
Fair enough.
We’ll see. What would you define as a SIGNIFICANT political issue? You already have shown that you are willing to disregard fraudulent behavior that cost innocent victims thousands of dollars, and forgiven him for going back on his words and principles. I guess those actions and character traits are not significant to you.
America is already great. My work here is done.
DePolar, Yogi Berra said when you reach a fork in the road, take it. America is taking the “right” fork instead of the “left” fork and for the betterment of the country.
I’m not willing to forego fraudulent behavior that costs people money.
There was NO ADMISSION OF GUILT in the settlement agreement.
Further, the plaintiff groups were compensated. Do you deny that? If so, who gets the $25M?
Continue babbling on with your Straw Man argument alone; I won’t waste more time with it.
Innocent people turn over $25 million just for kicks all of the time.
Just keep blindly supporting this con man.
Of course they were compensated. They were swindled by a fraud.
I’m sure you’ve worked with claim people in the past.
Seek help from one such person in explaining to you the utility and efficiency of settling void-of-merit claims for ‘chump change’ and the defendant’s concern over a radical jury pool.
From this point forward, you will be arguing with yourself, as I refuse to get baited into discussing your inane ideas as to the implication of a settlement of a nuisance suit for a walking wad of Benjamins (‘chump change’). I wouldn’t be surprised if he was willing to settle for more, but was happy to hear such a low figure to ‘close the door’.
I fully understand the economic merits of settling to minimize the financial harm of a large judgment. That is, if you know you would lose in a trial.
Problem here is that settling this particular case he is already going against his word and principles. You cannot argue that fact.
“There was NO ADMISSION OF GUILT in the settlement agreement.”
Wrong
“The settlement includes a $1 million penalty paid to New York state for violating the state’s education laws by calling the program a “university” despite offering no degrees or traditional education.“
Oh wow, they used a bad naming scheme.
How immoral, the horror.
Even if they had admitted wrong doing, it would only be because the government forced it.
What you just put I was not aware of, so good information, but the fact that you are digesting this as a bad thing for Trump, instead of how over reaching the government has become, is the bigger issue.
These are different circumstances. He has a full time job other than running Trump Enterprises now. If he didn’t, he could have allowed the litigation to continue to a point where the plaintiffs bent or broke.
He did what was best for this Nation. He is preparing to MAGA.
If you want to believe everything this man says and just bury your head in the sand, go ahead.
How many times does he have to go against his own word/principles and/or break campaign promises before you to start calling him out on them?
“Repeal and replace on day one, that much I can tell you. Believe me” – Drumpf – reality – not even in his 100 first days.
“Going to appoint a special prosecutor to investigate HRC” – Drumpf – reality – not going to pursue any investigation of HRC
Wall paid for by Mexico? He’s already talking about perhaps a fence or a “virtual fence”. HA! And, again, not mentioned in his first 100 days.
Where is this blind trust he promised, too? The guy can’t go longer than 3 minutes without lying. I said I’d point out the good things and I have. I also said I will be critical, and I am. We have white nationalists chanting “hail Trump” and the KKK is going to be holding their victory rally in December. Where are his tweets about this? Instead, he’s busy tweeting about SNL and “Hamilton”. Pence wasn’t even offended and it wasn’t harassment, it was a conversation. Oh wait, Drumpf doesn’t really believe in the First Amendment.
Drumpf voters, you’ve been grifted. He just pulled The Big Con. He puts the ‘con’ in conservative. Face it, you were duped!
Captain Planet,
I have a feeling we will not be hearing much rational defending of President Trump after his 1st 100 days. However, there will be a lot of blaming the Democrats when he is not accomplishing what he promised. Just a prediction.
I agree, Ron. They will be yelling Democratic obstruction. The fact is, that is what the Republicans decided to do on day 1 of President Obama’s first term when they met at The Caucus Room restaurant. The truth is, Republicans just don’t like governing much.
Imagine Hannity and Faux News if the same were true of HRC. Paid out $25M in fraud and racketeering a couple months ahead of taking oath. Add to this, losing the popular vote by what is now 1.5M votes and is likely to be closer to 2M. Add to that the whole FBI and Russian influence on the election. Yogi and Agent would be losing their minds. They’d be saying HRC needs to do the right thing and stand down, allow Kaine to take office. Keep shining that light on the hypocrisy, Drumpf! When will the buyer’s remorse kick in?
Another specious scenario to support another issue. This is akin to a Straw Man Argument, but distinctions exist between the two.
No one would allow Clinton an ‘out’ to facing the music for her VERY SERIOUS, CRIMINAL ACTIONS re: Pay for Play, and Felonious destruction and concealment of government documents, in conjunction with felonious establishment of a private system to hold top secret documents on a vulnerable to hacking server.
PS You’re creating unreal scenarios and making specious arguments.
It isn’t worth my while to continue to refute them, wasting valuable time I could devote to Making America Great Again, in my own Patriotic way.
“Super-delegates”, more commonly known as Electoral College Electors, will decide who will take the oath of office on 1/20/17.
Be sure to watch when the ECEs vote in mid-December.
Those 2M – 3M Illegal Immigrants, who were encouraged to vote by Obama – with his promise of no legal repercussions – will be frustrated that their Illegal efforts to elect HRC have all gone for naught… except in the erroneous totals that liberals continue to claim are more relevant than the EC system.
I wonder when members of the Liberal Mainstream Media are going to get around to asking Bernie Sanders whether he prefers the DNC’s Super Delegate system or a ‘popular vote’ method?
The sore losers are still trying to flip electors and some have received death threats. Does this sound like the United States of America to anyone?
Sore Loser Liberals(to ECE’s): “vote for HRC or die!”
Sounds like a dictatorship to me. North Korea or Cuba or Venezuela could be used as parallels, where ‘elections’ result in 99.995% of votes for the dictator, and .005% of the votes are cast by people who are not long for this world.
Planet, don’t forget purging hundreds of thousands of voters from the voting rolls, often illegally, in swing states. Their only “principles” are not wanting to pay taxes, wanting a free ride, and supporting Republicans no matter what.
Yes, we don’t mind purging the dead from the voting rolls. Doesn’t sound too American.
868 less polling places than 2012. Gerrymandering practices to strengthen Republican districting. These are facts.
Gerrymandering could be proven and could be ruled illegal by a high court, even SCOTUS.
Why hasn’t any of that happened?
Psst; whatever the number of polling places, there are sufficient places to vote when you consider mail in absentee ballots – if you are “too far from a polling place”.
But, please explain how many of the count you presented are causing PROVEN disenfranchisement, and why NO ONE has filed a lawsuit.
Link to INDEPENDENTLY AUDITED list of US voters purged from state voter rolls? I assume you have such a list, which has totals by state, and by the (prior) voter’s party of registration.
I’m sorry, but I MUST HAVE FORGOTTEN about that ‘purge’. That’s odd because I otherwise have a very good memory.
http://www.cbsnews.com/amp/news/judge-n-c-counties-must-restore-voters-illegally-purged-from-rolls/
Maybe what you consider a very good memory is abject stupidity clouded by an addled brain and thought process. Same story was all over, like I said, and in some places their stated intention months ago was to swing the election by removing legal voters. Do you have a problem with this, or are you 100% against democracy?
That was nothing more than a last minute ruing by the judge.
Let us know the eventual outcome of the decision to purge invalid registrations.
should be ‘ruling’, not ‘ruing’.
PS let us know the FINAL vote counts in NC.
And, also let us know the MEANINGLESS popular vote counts across the Nation, preferably on the day of the ECE vote in mid December.
DePolarBearables,
You are a piece of work. You ask for something, it is provided, and then you summarily disregard it. If that is what you are going to do with the facts that you request, please stop asking for them.
Ron, piece of work is one way to say it, despicable, ignorant, POS is what I prefer. No evidence will ever be enough, which is why people should resort to mocking, derision, and treating people like this like the jokes they are.
Yogi, idiot, since you stated in another thread you do not believe Clinton is ahead in the popular vote, even you must realize that would mean, that by your logic – and I use that term very loosely with you – the election was illegitimate, Trump is not rightfully the president, and something must be done. Right?
@Ron and UW;
The link provided simply stated that the law was temporarily reversed too close to the election to be litigated and sustained.
Let us know when the ruling is FINAL.
NC Prez:
Trump 50.5%; 2,339,603
Clinton 46.7%; 2,162,074
Difference: Trump + 177,527
Votes cast: 4.6M
voter registrations suspended then re-instated: 3,500 to 4,000.
To quote Hillary Clinton; “What difference, at this point, does it make?”
I read the article linked. It is UNSETTLED as to whether or not the cancelled voter registrations will be sustained or whether the last minute appeal will stand.
However, the purge of the registrations FOLLOWED state election laws. And, any reference to PRIOR actions is irrelevant and non-admissible in this case, in court.
You’re both grasping at straws while holding out hope that SOMETHING will reverse the nightmare you’re experiencing as a result of you supporting a crook who lost.
Unintended consequence of this action in NC: if fraud is detected, McCrory (R) may eventually end up winning while he currently trails by a few thousand votes. Oops!
UW,
Two things: first, although there was some suspicious activity I doubt the election would have gone HRC’s way even if “swaying” didn’t take part. That doesn’t make it right but I think we can agree that this election was so utterly disgusting in how things were done by both parties that in the end it’s not a matter of who was worse but more so, “let’s make sure nothing like this ever happens again”. Second, do yourself a favor and do not present DePolarBearables with facts. My fellow conservative has a very, very hard time accepting facts and I know his life would be a lot less stressful if you just hid certain truths from him. Thank you!
Even if that were true, one should always present facts.
Also, Depolar just made very good points in response to UW, with facts.
And you didn’t. You said the same basic thing without facts. Depolar gave numbers.
Sometimes Depolor acts like an idiot, but this doesn’t make depolar completely against facts.
It’s a bit belligerent, but is not a reason to then take away facts. I don’t believe in ever treating a human the way you just said.
Facts go above feelings, not whether or not there is stress and conflict and bantering due to facts.
If someone I know held a fact from me because they were worried I would be ticked off and questioned it (even if I was initially wrong) I wouldn’t befriend that person and would remove them.
If someone yelled at me a fact, trying to change my mind but was over charged, I would keep them close. They would be the type of friend that would encourage my growth.