Posts made by royalcrown89

This is so sad because he lied to LGBT Americans' faces while running for president. We all knew he was lying but the writing is now on the wall. Look at how this administration is fine with discrimination against LGBT individuals in the workplace. It's just sad that in 2017 we have a president and an administration that is pushing for making certain individuals second-class citizens. How can someone be perfectly fine with individuals being discriminated against just because of their sexual orientation? It's probably not him personally, it's those who are around him; however, if he's this incredible leader as I've heard then he should have no problem standing up for people he promised he'd treat fairly. Denying individuals essential opportunities is not treating them fairly. Pushing them closer to becoming second-class citizens is not treating them fairly.

@cteavin:

You'll find variations of those stories all 'round. You'll never get rid of guns in the US so the focus is getting rid of the military grade shit already available.

It's impossible to focus on getting rid of military grade assault weapons because the NRA controls Republicans and Democrats are split between wanting to ban all guns and wanting to create registries as if we're in a socialist country or something; meanwhile, also not addressing the fact that criminals will get their hands on guns regardless. This is a complex problem and I hate to agree with Bill O'Reilly, but maybe it truly is the cost of freedom. There was a time where I was for making changes to the 2nd Amendment, but I realize that is extremely dangerous. Making new laws is somewhat pointless because the laws on the books are not being properly enforced already. I've heard the argument that the Founding Fathers had no idea how advanced our weaponry would become, but I must call bulls*t on that because Americans have been innovators from Day 1. They meant what they said as it is written in the Constitution. I do have faith that the country will come to an agreement on something, but I have to admit I'm against what many on the left want to do to fix the problems.

@cteavin:

Why won't Trump release his tax returns? Because he made Obama release his birth certificate as a show of dominance and so Trump will not be made to show his to further assert his dominance over the left's insistence that he does.

Dominance of what? Being unfit to be president?

At the end of the day, you have your opinion and I have mine and at least you understand that instead of calling me childish names like some of the others have done over and over again before I took a much-needed hiatus from this forum. Also, there's already someone looking into his taxes: the special counsel that has been appointed to investigate the possibility of collusion. We'll find out what's in the tax returns one way or another.

@cteavin, you claim to be new to these parts of the forum so I won't go deep into the reason why I have no patience for a lot of those who take up for the right on here. I had a long, popular thread about civility on here and basically everyone who takes up for the right spat in my face repeatedly. I was called many, many childish names and after over 2 months of trying to find middle ground with people who would rather deflect and derail the attempts of me and others, I gave up. I'm done with that. If I agree with someone, that's fine. If not, that's also fine. But my days of finding something to agree on are pretty much over and I am not the blame for that. I practically begged everyone to please tone down the rhetoric and let's agree on simple courteous measures and like I said, they spat in my face.  Childish name calling (moonbat, cuck, etc.) is perfectly fine with you so once again, you have no right coming at me accusing me of being uncivil when you're fine with worse behavior.

@Frederick:

@royalcrown89:

I have another question: Would you all take the same stance with our next president, regardless of which party (or no party at all) he or she belongs to? Just for the sake of argument, would you support Gavin Newsom or Deval Patrick not releasing their tax returns or disclosing any financial information about which companies they are invested in or have divested themselves from upon becoming president or is this one president the exception?

There are dozens of things far more important than one's tax returns.  Such as.. producing a birth certificate BEFORE 1.5 years after they have been elected president (and even then.. a controversial one).  Also far more important is where they were raised for the first 13 years of their life.  Such as a muslim nation like Indonesia.

Well, if that's important then so is the possible corruption of a sitting president. How do we know he is not being blackmailed by Russia to behave erratically to weaken our position around the world? This is a serious problem and it's dangerous to blindly follow someone who is the current president and we have no idea if he's being controlled by a foreign government. You can't argue that the former president who has no power now is more of a danger to our democracy than the current one sitting in office who is going out of his way to hide financial statements that other presidents have provided easily. How come President Obama–-no longer in office---is still being subjected to conspiracy theorists and birthers such as yourself but it's crazy to want to see the sitting president's tax returns which is something every other president in modern history has provided to the American people to establish trust?  :pleasant:

@Frederick:

@royalcrown89:

Because the 2nd amendment  ;D No seriously, I think it's about the feeling of safety you get from having the gun.

I suppose that weak minded people would feel more secure with a gun - a false sense of security is quite dangerous.

It is the view of the Republican party, many in the Democratic party, the NRA and a majority of Americans that having a gun makes you feel more safe. All of those people couldn't possibly be wrong, could they? ;D

Because the 2nd amendment  ;D No seriously, I think it's about the feeling of safety you get from having the gun.

@Frederick:

@royalcrown89:

@cteavin:

@royalcrown89:

Yep, because the current president and his family have NEVER been ANYWHERE near Harvey Weinstein, right? Only those on the left have EVER been around him and have possibly invested in anything related to him, meaning there's NO evidence of our current president ever being in the same circle as Weinstein and probably doesn't even know him, right? TRY AGAIN!

Can you prove that Harvey Weinstein has NEVER given money to ANYONE in #45's family or to #45 himself? If you have the president's tax returns and can prove that he has never invested in The Weinstein Company, any of the films or shows produced by said company and/or hasn't received money from Harvey Weinstein, then you should probably produce those tax returns or it's perfectly logical for someone to assume the president is financially tied to Weinstein also. The president had a successful TV show and has been given money by many different banks around the world as well as individuals who have invested in his brand from time to time. We have access to every other president's financial records going all the way back to Nixon, with the exception being the current president. So no sir, YOU are the hypocrite for supporting a blatant liar and coward who has yet to prove to the Americans that he is supposed to serve that he is not a corrupt, immoral, lunatic bigot.

I'm relatively new to these forums and with the exception of the occasional "moonbat" and "Oasama" for "Obama" the tone in these threads has been civil, productive, and interesting. This is the first time I've read something openly antagonistic like this and it's a turn-off.

I'd like to see people interact on these boards but if anyone were to come here and see badly written shouting, they're not staying. Tone it down. There's an actual human on the other end of your computer.

Personally, I don't care if you like or dislike Trump, you're reasoning is flawed. You're mad that he didn't show his tax returns – he doesn't have to, and this thread isn't about his tax returns. It's not even about POTUS. It's a fact, a solid fact that Weinstein has given money to the DNC for decades. It's solid fact that the leftist, leftists were all around him. And those left-leaning celebrities are only now coming out against him, only now telling their decades-old stories. The point is that these very same celebrities were sitting on real evidence of a scumbag (Weinstein) while virtue signaling.

I've seen some of your actual titles and while you have been civil, I see no signs of a few others being civil. The main point of my post in this thread is about hypocrisy. It is widely known that the president and his family are also friends of Weinstein, yet you all have painted the left as his only friends. Well, once upon a time the president was a frequent leftist and whether he was a fake leftist or not; we do not know if he ever received money or gave money to Weinstein at any point because he is the first president to not release his tax returns. That's the point of my post and I do not appreciate you coming at me with some phony accusation as if this forum hasn't turned into a conservative echo chamber. And "badly written" makes you sound close to being a "grammar Nazi" so be careful.

What nonsense.   Being a billionaire and major TV personality in New York City, Trump has been photographed with just about everybody that one could think of including Harvey Weinstein.   I tried, but could not find even one photo of Trump with Weinstein.   The closest I could find was some social gathering in which Weinstein is standing in front of the camera, and a few feet behind him is Trump standing with his wife on one side, some other woman on his other side
In fact, Weinstein hates Trump.  Weinstein hates all people who aren't leftists or have big tits.  Weinstein produced several shlockumentaries with leftist pig Michael Moore including "Fahrenheit 9/11"
http://uproxx.com/movies/harvey-weinstein-donald-trump-hands-of-stone/

I attached that photo of him with Weinstein and also a photo of Ivanka and Jared with Weinstein in my first post on this topic; therefore, they have been in photos with him. I'll concede the point that it's not proven if Weinstein has ever given money to or received money from #45 but only because #45's finances are being kept secret from the American people. If Weinstein releases proof that #45 has given him money or has received money from him, would you call it fake news even though he has been photographed with #45 and also with Ivanka and Jared?

Also, I should've stated this before but Harvey Weinstein should be condemned more by those on the left than what I've seen so far. President Obama waited way too long to speak out which is highly suspicious to me. It is comparable to what we've seen on the right regarding #45's admission of sexual assault and it's wrong. Republicans immediately condemned the taped admission of sexual assault/harassment by the president but still support him to this day. All acts should be condemned, especially when there is video evidence of the person admitting they used their power to grab women by their genitals.

What do you guys think of Sam Smith? I love his voice so much and the two new songs I've heard of him, with "Too Good at Goodbyes" being my favorite of the two.

I feel like I wasted money seeing this film because it truly was pretentious. It wasn't an action film like the Fast & Furious films so my partner was fighting sleep as usual, but I tried to give it a chance but it came off as cheesy and too obvious at times. This was a horrible attempt at allegory and I understand why the critics gave it such bad ratings. The cheesiness ruined any chance of this film becoming a classic. The acting and overall physical production of the scenes were refreshing though. I love Michelle Pfeiffer and Ed Harris, so I'm a little biased with praising the acting  ;D

@cteavin, you make a great point about the cherry picking and this thread makes a great point overall. Where is that line? I believe conservatism is severely needed to stop governmental overreach into our freedoms (especially guns and the freedom to love), but that it should be done in a manner to protect all Americans and not just those who are seen as worthy of that protection. Like Frederick said, it is just like the attacks on free speech by the left. They like to believe they're advocating for free speech but they're actually advocating for limited speech tailored to their points of view.

I have another question: Would you all take the same stance with our next president, regardless of which party (or no party at all) he or she belongs to? Just for the sake of argument, would you support Gavin Newsom or Deval Patrick not releasing their tax returns or disclosing any financial information about which companies they are invested in or have divested themselves from upon becoming president or is this one president the exception?

@raphjd:

Where is my Congresswoman's (Sheila Jackson Lee) tax return?

How do I know she has no conflict of interest.    She could be donating to BLM or Antifa for all we know.

Have you written to her and asked her? If she has donated to Antifa, that would be devastating and it would be great if you (as one of her constituents) did some research to find out. However, she's not my Congresswomen or the Congresswomen for millions and millions of Americans so I wouldn't know and that's not even related to this discussion in any way, shape or form. We're not discussing local or Congressional politicians' tax returns. We are talking about the current president who has broken with a noncontroversial precedent set by many of his predecessors, and we still do not have an honest answer for why he's breaking with that noncontroversial precedent. There are a lot of serious questions that could be answered by him releasing them. Should legislation be passed saying every president should release his tax returns and then have that legislation followed with Congressional action to override his potential veto?

@cteavin:

@royalcrown89:

Let's stop trying to shut each other up with childishness and actually have a discussion.

I'm going to hold you to this.  :police:

You're talking a lot of could(possible) and should(opinion) but the only two facts are that previous presidents have released their tax returns and Trump didn't. He is under no obligation to release them and the only people who insist on seeing them are the Never Trumpers, so there is no point in him releasing them.

I'll make an assumption: If there were anything wrong in his tax returns, the IRS would have to fine him or file charges and that would get out. If the special prosecutor found any irregularities, that would also get out. Barring that, there's no need and no way you're going to see them. He could show them, but he won't; there's no reason he should show them and that's my opinion.

Why do you believe we as Americans should not be able to see if this president has any conflicts of interests? He is the only one in modern history not to do so. "He doesn't have to" does nothing to lessen the shock of that fact. Also, isn't that the same IRS multiple Republicans have been telling us all not to trust for decades now? So, we're not supposed to have confidence in the IRS except on this sole matter?

@cteavin:

@royalcrown89:

Yep, because the current president and his family have NEVER been ANYWHERE near Harvey Weinstein, right? Only those on the left have EVER been around him and have possibly invested in anything related to him, meaning there's NO evidence of our current president ever being in the same circle as Weinstein and probably doesn't even know him, right? TRY AGAIN!

Can you prove that Harvey Weinstein has NEVER given money to ANYONE in #45's family or to #45 himself? If you have the president's tax returns and can prove that he has never invested in The Weinstein Company, any of the films or shows produced by said company and/or hasn't received money from Harvey Weinstein, then you should probably produce those tax returns or it's perfectly logical for someone to assume the president is financially tied to Weinstein also. The president had a successful TV show and has been given money by many different banks around the world as well as individuals who have invested in his brand from time to time. We have access to every other president's financial records going all the way back to Nixon, with the exception being the current president. So no sir, YOU are the hypocrite for supporting a blatant liar and coward who has yet to prove to the Americans that he is supposed to serve that he is not a corrupt, immoral, lunatic bigot.

I'm relatively new to these forums and with the exception of the occasional "moonbat" and "Oasama" for "Obama" the tone in these threads has been civil, productive, and interesting. This is the first time I've read something openly antagonistic like this and it's a turn-off.

I'd like to see people interact on these boards but if anyone were to come here and see badly written shouting, they're not staying. Tone it down. There's an actual human on the other end of your computer.

Personally, I don't care if you like or dislike Trump, you're reasoning is flawed. You're mad that he didn't show his tax returns – he doesn't have to, and this thread isn't about his tax returns. It's not even about POTUS. It's a fact, a solid fact that Weinstein has given money to the DNC for decades. It's solid fact that the leftist, leftists were all around him. And those left-leaning celebrities are only now coming out against him, only now telling their decades-old stories. The point is that these very same celebrities were sitting on real evidence of a scumbag (Weinstein) while virtue signaling.

I've seen some of your actual titles and while you have been civil, I see no signs of a few others being civil. The main point of my post in this thread is about hypocrisy. It is widely known that the president and his family are also friends of Weinstein, yet you all have painted the left as his only friends. Well, once upon a time the president was a frequent leftist and whether he was a fake leftist or not; we do not know if he ever received money or gave money to Weinstein at any point because he is the first president to not release his tax returns. That's the point of my post and I do not appreciate you coming at me with some phony accusation as if this forum hasn't turned into a conservative echo chamber. And "badly written" makes you sound close to being a "grammar Nazi" so be careful.

It'll probably change before the year is out, but definitely Get Out. It is a masterpiece and I honestly cannot wait for the award nominations it will receive fingers crossed to be announced. It isn't one of the most critically-acclaimed films of this year for nothing! It still has a 99% rating on Rotten Tomatoes AND it was a relatively major box office success given its budget. Beyond that stuff though, it's a great film and struck a near-perfect balance of comedy and horror.

Notice what I've highlighted before you come at me with childish name calling.

Actually, she did an episode about 2 pages from a "leaked" return, not a FULL return; which means we have no idea how the president got his money nor do we know who he owes. We also do not know if he has fully divested from his companies. He could have major conflicts of interest going on right now for all we know. If Mueller does indeed have the returns, he had to get a court order to obtain them which means he had to prove to a judge or a handful of judges that the president's tax returns are necessary to investigate alleged–-forgot to put that in first post because nothing has been proven–-collusion with Russia. If a motion was granted for Mueller to obtain the tax returns for the sole purpose of investigating collusion, then why not clear them to be released to the public once collusion has been proven or ruled out? The president was indeed a private citizen PRIOR to being elected president. He is now susceptible to open investigations and hearings where his finances and debts can be discussed, especially in matters of possible abuse of power and obstruction of justice. Should the investigation go that far, I believe the people should know the truth so there won't be any claims of "fake news" if the president and/or members of his administration are charged with crimes.

There is a serious lack of transparency with this president mainly because of this issue and to call out previous administrations for not being transparent; even though they've been very transparent on this issue, is highly hypocritical. He is the only president in modern history (post-Nixon) to not release his tax returns. In my opinion, this is not fake news. This is not about being bitter over the election, after all I have been calling the man president ever since he was inaugurated (check my statements). Also, it was the Republican party that opened both the Senate and House investigations into Russia collusion, not the Democrats. Democrats do not control the committees because they do not have the majority. This is about the fact that he is the only president since Nixon to not release his tax returns; therefore, it is fair to ask why that is. No one HAS to release anything. However, the questions will remain and so will the mistrust. It is a fact that the overwhelming majority of this country now doesn't trust this president (for many different reasons) and he could begin to change that by continuing a long-standing tradition that is arguably the easiest showing of transparency for a new president.

This isn't about attacks. I simply asked should the tax returns be released and why you believe they should or shouldn't. You either believe they should be released or you don't. Either way, you are entitled to your opinion but you should state your opinion and defend it. I personally believe the president should be locked up, but that doesn't mean I am incapable of having a discussion on why he should not be locked up. I don't have a "boner" about this issue neither do the people who have legitimate concerns. I believe his tax returns should be released and I stated my reasons why I think they should be released to the public. Why do you believe they should not be released? Do you believe this country should do away with presidential transparency altogether and just take the president's word for every single thing? Would you feel that same way about the 46th president should this current president not get reelected? This is a discussion, not a petty wrestling match. Let's stop trying to shut each other up with childishness and actually have a discussion.

Since July, there has been a strong possibility that special counsel Robert Mueller–-the head overseer on the Russia collusion investigation---has already obtained the president's tax returns. Remember, this president is the only president in modern history to NOT release his tax returns and after many blatant attempts at deflecting, has shown absolutely no signs of being upfront with the American people. Those two pages released by Rachel Maddow did not show everything and wasn't a full tax return; therefore, bringing that up is ignoring MANY other things involved in a standard tax return released by a sitting president.

If Mueller indeed does have the tax returns, I believe he should release them. He should definitely release them if it helps make his case to the public whether or not charges should be filed against the president and/or the people of his administration. I have my own personal beliefs about what's in the tax returns, but I'd still want to see them to see if I'm right or wrong. Releasing them could also take away a major argument the left has on this president, especially if the returns going back a certain number of years show no wrongdoing of any kind. It could potentially make the president's approval ratings go up, even higher than the 45% he came into office with. If there's nothing troublesome in the returns, then why not do what every president from Ford to Obama has done without a fuss? Mueller most likely has the returns and once the investigation concludes, I hope he does the right thing and makes them public to the American people. There is already a precedent set by previous presidents and it has clearly been taken advantage of because of how forthcoming those presidents were with their tax returns. We deserve transparency.

Yep, because the current president and his family have NEVER been ANYWHERE near Harvey Weinstein, right? Only those on the left have EVER been around him and have possibly invested in anything related to him, meaning there's NO evidence of our current president ever being in the same circle as Weinstein and probably doesn't even know him, right? TRY AGAIN!

Can you prove that Harvey Weinstein has NEVER given money to ANYONE in #45's family or to #45 himself? If you have the president's tax returns and can prove that he has never invested in The Weinstein Company, any of the films or shows produced by said company and/or hasn't received money from Harvey Weinstein, then you should probably produce those tax returns or it's perfectly logical for someone to assume the president is financially tied to Weinstein also. The president had a successful TV show and has been given money by many different banks around the world as well as individuals who have invested in his brand from time to time. We have access to every other president's financial records going all the way back to Nixon, with the exception being the current president. So no sir, YOU are the hypocrite for supporting a blatant liar and coward who has yet to prove to the Americans that he is supposed to serve that he is not a corrupt, immoral, lunatic bigot.