Bulgaria. psychic Baba Vanga

Predicted horrible things for Trump. many years ago, long before he became President.
Deafness, tinnitus and brain damage ( which he already seems to have).

We can only hope these predictions come true.

https://mol.im/a/6530411

I hope not as some of her other predictions for Europe and Britain are pretty awful.
Why ill wish someone because you don't like his politics, he's only there for four years at most before he can be legally voted out. Are you afraid he'll get back in ?

He will be in prison before then.

Why wish brain damage on anyone ?

Vintage wrote:Why ill wish someone because you don't like his politics, he's only there for four years at most before he can be legally voted out. Are you afraid he'll get back in ?

Because he is a criminal.  You might ask the same question about those rapists you think are immigrant gangs, grooming young girls in Britain.  Why wish ill on them just because they are Muslim?

Isn't it because they are criminals?  Isn't that a separate matter?  Likewise, why let a criminal go free just because he is in politics?  It's not a 'Get outta jail free' card, ya know.

So now Quill is comparing someone not convicted with any crime, to those convicted of child abuse

You cannot make it up, how the left are some of the worst proponents of hate

The left openly admit to wishing ill on people they do not like

Ahh...didge is one of the dupes on the lower echelon of the right wing, reminiscent of the words of John Stuart Mill: "I never said all conservatives are stupid; I said all stupid people are conservatives."

Did you think we weren't listening at the door? Even though Special Counsel Mueller is quite tight-lipped, we've heard enough to know enough to convict Trump. First, Donald openly admitted collusion, or conspiracy against the United States, on TV.



Now, his lawyer Michael Cohen openly admits it. Was he trading favors with our rights? The lawyer also admits the quid pro quo: Trump Towers in Moscow and Riyadh.

Was Trump paying off prostitutes and accepting contributions under the table? Once again, the lawyer comes through with donald's own words:



Trump! The gift that keeps on giving. But wait, there's more...

Thought you were a Lawyer Quill ? If so, state every thing you think he's guilty of, and print out the exact proof you have of the charges you would bring against him. Because all you do is waffle endlessly about what YOU think he's done. Give me incontestable proof, the same as what would be needed in a Court of Law! Innocent till proven guilty, as a Lawyer you should stand by that. Meanwhile he's still POTUS !

PS, I think he's an idiot, but he could be an innocent idiot !

nicko wrote:Thought you were a Lawyer Quill ?   If so,  state every thing you think he's guilty of,   and print out the exact proof you have of the charges you would bring against him.

It's already been done; I gave a detailed listing earlier in the year, and the findings of the Mueller investigation will be made public early next year. We're long past liability concerns. We are now in the constitutional debate of whether a president may be indicted. Soon, we will be addressing issues of succession.

nicko wrote:Because all you do is waffle endlessly about what YOU think he's done. Give me incontestable proof, the same as what would be needed in a Court of Law!   Innocent till proven guilty, as a Lawyer you should stand by that.  Meanwhile he's still POTUS !

That is the remaining problem: "...he's still POTUS!" The issues before us are twofold: (1) how to remove him; and (2) insofar as it appears he and Pence were unconstitutionally instated, how to render all of his official actions null and void.

The standard for removal is "high crimes and misdemeanors", which has been held to mean whatever Congress chooses. Past impeachments have been predicated on much less than Trump's actions. For example, Nixon's obstructions were far lighter than Trump's. Moreover, the underlying crimes of Trump involve treason, espionage and sedition, whereas Nixon's crimes were a third-rate burglary and the cover-up.

As for what remedial action must be taken, steps must be made to render all things as they would be were there no president from 2017 to 2019. First all appointments must be nullified and reversed. Second, all legislation must be treated as lapsed, as no president existed to sign it. Third, all executive orders must be rescinded, and steps must be taken to undo the harm Trump has done (eg, reparations to children dead, caged or separated from their families).

As per laws of succession, the Speaker of the House must be instated as the new President of the United States. Currently, that would, or will be Nancy Pelosi. She is entitled to appoint her own Vice-President and cabinet. It will be up to the new president to reverse, and undo the harm done to international relations.

I hope your proven right mate, or your going to look a right idiot !
By the way ,I only reply to your criticism of Trump because no one else does, and I always stick up for the underdog !

nicko wrote:I hope your proven right mate, or your going to look a right idiot !

If we remove Trump, and it turns out we were wrong, well...that's not idiocy, it's just successful politics. But I think we're gonna find that we've got a criminal family in the White House. It was probably bound to happen, what with NYC crime families, and now the emergence of Russian gangsters.

nicko wrote:By the way ,I only reply to your criticism of Trump because no one else does,  and I always stick up for the underdog !  

That's fine. You give rise to some good discussions. I'll never deny one a chance to express an opinion.

Did you know he went to Iraq to welcome the Troops ?

nicko wrote:Did you know  he went to Iraq to welcome the Troops ?

...and gave a campaign speech, FCS! He can't get away from his snake-oil salesman persona.

The military brass was very critical about this. He gave no notice--probably was running from all the turmoil at home. He avoided the President of Iraq. Flew in and flew out, as if afraid. (Probably that the Iraqis would have arrested him.) He gave no reason for running from Syria, and said he would command our interests from Iraq. He failed to ask the Iraqis, who probably won't give permission.

His speech was for domestic consumption, given that he has shut down the government. WTF do troops in Iraq care about borders in New Mexico? It was just a publicity stunt.

Andy wrote:Predicted horrible things for Trump. many years ago, long before he became President.
Deafness, tinnitus and brain damage ( which he already seems to have).

We can only hope these predictions come true.

https://mol.im/a/6530411

Speak for yourself. Wishing ill on others is not something to be proud of.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Andy wrote:Predicted horrible things for Trump. many years ago, long before he became President.
Deafness, tinnitus and brain damage ( which he already seems to have).

We can only hope these predictions come true.

https://mol.im/a/6530411

Speak for yourself. Wishing ill on others is not something to be proud of.

You haven't done yourself that proud when it comes to kids at the border, either. You seem happy that two children are dead.

Raggs. The Katie Hopkins of Newsfix.

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Speak for yourself. Wishing ill on others is not something to be proud of.

You haven't done yourself that proud when it comes to kids at the border, either.  You seem happy that two children are dead.

You mean like you're happy that kids die as long as they're not immigrants, and as long as they're white?

Andy wrote:Raggs. The Katie Hopkins of Newsfix.

Says the idiot who just wished that someone would go deaf.

Andy all over !

Raggamuffin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

You haven't done yourself that proud when it comes to kids at the border, either.  You seem happy that two children are dead.

You mean like you're happy that kids die as long as they're not immigrants, and as long as they're white?

Raggs, now your reduced to making up allegations.  When have I ever said I'm in favor of any child dying?  Ridiculous...and highly unbecoming of you.

I s'pose I should take that for what it is: a hollow stick with which to strike back when you've nothing left.  A sign of my triumph?  Well, I don't need it.  Why not do as the footballers do, and when the whistle blows shake hands with the other players, regardless of who won.

It's better than inventing antagonisms.  There are other games...other debates.  A loss is never forever.

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

You mean like you're happy that kids die as long as they're not immigrants, and as long as they're white?

Raggs, now your reduced to making up allegations.  When have I ever said I'm in favor of any child dying?  Ridiculous...and highly unbecoming of you.

I s'pose I should take that for what it is: a hollow stick with which to strike back when you've nothing left.  A sign of my triumph?  Well, I don't need it.  Why not do as the footballers do, and when the whistle blows shake hands with the other players, regardless of who won.

It's better than inventing antagonisms.  There are other games...other debates.  A loss is never forever.

Oh the irony. You made up something about me, and you lied, but you just don't get it do you? You lost that particular debate several posts ago anyway.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:


Raggs, now your reduced to making up allegations.  When have I ever said I'm in favor of any child dying?  Ridiculous...and highly unbecoming of you.

I s'pose I should take that for what it is: a hollow stick with which to strike back when you've nothing left.  A sign of my triumph?  Well, I don't need it.  Why not do as the footballers do, and when the whistle blows shake hands with the other players, regardless of who won.

It's better than inventing antagonisms.  There are other games...other debates.  A loss is never forever.

Oh the irony. You made up something about me, and you lied, but you just don't get it do you? You lost that particular debate several posts ago anyway.

Give it up, Raggs.  Your position is untenable.  I mean, defending the inhumane treatment of others, up to and including loss of lives of children??  It's unsupportable.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:


Raggs, now your reduced to making up allegations.  When have I ever said I'm in favor of any child dying?  Ridiculous...and highly unbecoming of you.

I s'pose I should take that for what it is: a hollow stick with which to strike back when you've nothing left.  A sign of my triumph?  Well, I don't need it.  Why not do as the footballers do, and when the whistle blows shake hands with the other players, regardless of who won.

It's better than inventing antagonisms.  There are other games...other debates.  A loss is never forever.

Oh the irony. You made up something about me, and you lied, but you just don't get it do you? You lost that particular debate several posts ago anyway.

To raise another incident in response to your own failure is to resort to the tu quoque fallacy (whataboutism).  If you want to change the subject, don't do it as if it's a response to this one.

And no, I'm not to admitting anything.  I made this a separate post to point out the tu quoque fallacy, to show that it is illogical.

Stop using Lawyer talk, [or Latin] I'v warned you about this before !

nicko wrote:Stop using Lawyer talk, [or Latin] I'v warned you about this before  !

I gave you the English translation: whataboutism.

nicko wrote:Stop using Lawyer talk, [or Latin] I'v warned you about this before  !

Just means "and you" or "you also."

We old grunts (even those of us who had nice blue uniforms and handlebar moustaches) simply say "you an'all, mate."

Original Quill wrote:

Vintage wrote:Why ill wish someone because you don't like his politics, he's only there for four years at most before he can be legally voted out. Are you afraid he'll get back in ?

Because he is a criminal.  You might ask the same question about those rapists you think are immigrant gangs, grooming young girls in Britain.  Why wish ill on them just because they are Muslim?

Isn't it because they are criminals?  Isn't that a separate matter?  Likewise, why let a criminal go free just because he is in politics?  It's not a 'Get outta jail free' card, ya know.

And most of us don't, Quill...we wish ill on them because they are paedophiles, rapists and scum....and the vast majority of us could not care a fish's tit whether they are Muslims, Jews, Anglicans, Catholics, Shintoists, Taoists, Buddhists or friggin' Easter Island stone head worshippers.

And, sadly, we don't have to think they are immigrants to our shores; the conviction list contains remarkably few names with an Anglo Saxon or Norman origin.

Fred Moletrousers wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Because he is a criminal.  You might ask the same question about those rapists you think are immigrant gangs, grooming young girls in Britain.  Why wish ill on them just because they are Muslim?

Isn't it because they are criminals?  Isn't that a separate matter?  Likewise, why let a criminal go free just because he is in politics?  It's not a 'Get outta jail free' card, ya know.

And most of us don't, Quill...we wish ill on them because they are paedophiles, rapists and scum....and the vast majority of us could not care a fish's tit whether they are Muslims, Jews, Anglicans, Catholics, Shintoists, Taoists, Buddhists or friggin' Easter Island stone head worshippers.

And, sadly, we don't have to think they are immigrants to our shores; the conviction list contains remarkably few names with an Anglo Saxon or Norman origin.

I think you missed the point, Fred.  I was mimicking the argument just made by Vintage.

My point is that criminals are criminals, and shouldn't be excused because of anyone's own political persuasions.  Trump has a long history of lawbreaking.  The law is something we should all have to abide by.  Politics is no excuse, nor is the fact that he is POTUS.

Were it not, we would no better that some South American banana republic.

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Oh the irony. You made up something about me, and you lied, but you just don't get it do you? You lost that particular debate several posts ago anyway.

Give it up, Raggs.  Your position is untenable.  I mean, defending the inhumane treatment of others, up to and including loss of lives of children??  It's unsupportable.

I see you've given up on this absurd idea that the children were deliberately killed, and you've resorted to having a go at me instead. You've never cared about any other children dying, which just shows that you don't actually give a stuff, you just want an excuse to have a go at Trump.

A long history of lawbreaking - there must be evidence then why hasn't it been used to prosecute him why was he allowed to stand for office, why hasn't he been impeached?

Vintage wrote:A long history of lawbreaking - there must be evidence then why hasn't it been used to prosecute him why was he allowed to stand for office, why hasn't he been impeached?

It's one of those crime families. A through uprooting of mafiosa families is a difficult task and takes time. It is all the more time-consuming when so many lies are told by the crime participants.

Nonetheless, you'll be pleased to hear that 33 people have already been indicted, and over a dozen convictions have been had.

NPR noted in early December:

NPR wrote:That criticism aside, the special counsel investigation has resulted in criminal counts against more than 30 people and three Russian entities. And while the final outcome of the Mueller probe remains far from certain, it has already generated new insights into how Russia targeted the election, the presidential transition and Trump's business empire.
https://www.npr.org/2018/12/09/643444815/all-the-criminal-charges-to-emerge-so-far-from-robert-muellers-investigation

See also:

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/2/20/17031772/mueller-indictments-grand-jury

Good then, I understand its difficult to find evidence where a lot of money is available to cover activities up or use other people or companies to do the dirty work. What would happen if Trump was removed does the Vice President automatically take over until the next due election or would you need a new election asap?

Vintage wrote:Good then, I understand its difficult to find evidence where a lot of money is available to cover activities up or use other people or companies to do the dirty work. What would happen if Trump was removed does the Vice President automatically take over until the next due election or would you need a new election asap?

Xlnt question.  Ordinarily, the line of succession is Vice President, then Speaker of the House, then I believe it is President pro tempore of the Senate, followed by Secretary of State, and then it goes through the cabinet beginning with Treasury, Defense, and so on.  This succession has been criticized because, following the President pro tempore of the Senate, there is no elected official...all appointed.

This situation is a bit different in this case because the impeachment of the President will almost certainly involve crimes that also go to the Vice President.  The allegation is collusion or conspiracy with Russians, allowing circumvention of the election process in the United States: conspiracy against the US.  Mr. Pence was very active in the campaign, and he was chairman of the transition team.

It is quite likely that Pence was involved with any plot to circumvent the election process.  Remember, Trump was an amateur, relying on people like Pence for guidance.  Moreover, some of the crimes involve Gen. Flynn, at the time of the transition, and his dealings with the Russians, possibly involving espionage.  Mr. Pence was aware of Flynn's activities because (1) he (Pence) was chairman of the transition team, and (2) the acting Attorney General, Ms. Sally Yeats, told him (Pence) of Flynn's contacts directly with the Russian ambassador in January, 2017.  She provided him with a tape/transcript of the phone call(s).  Pence did nothing to remove or punish Flynn, revealing a willingness to participate in the espionage conspiracy going on at the time.  Pence appears to be at least a co-conspirator in the high crimes and misdemeanors.

Thus, it is at least probable that both the President and Vice-President will be impeached and tried simultaneously.  This would leave the presidential office to the Speaker of the House.

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Oh the irony. You made up something about me, and you lied, but you just don't get it do you? You lost that particular debate several posts ago anyway.

To raise another incident in response to your own failure is to resort to the tu quoque fallacy (whataboutism).  If you want to change the subject, don't do it as if it's a response to this one.

And no, I'm not to admitting anything.  I made this a separate post to point out the tu quoque fallacy, to show that it is illogical.

You're the one who raised another incident - ie, you referred to the immigrant child in this thread, so you're the one who changed the subect. I sometimes wonder if you actually remember your own posts.

This thread really spells out the stark difference between those on the center and to the right. Compared to those on the centre left. Whilst those on the centre right may deplore if Corbyn ever obtained power. None of us here, would ill wish him and the rest of the Labour party. It also shows that we also respect and adhere to democracy, better than those on the center and left. They are not only driven by hate, with a view for harm to come to Politicians, but its also done with a view. To alter the make up of the present Governement's.

Many of us simple think it would be a nightmare if Corbyn got in, but we certainly would not be acting as pathetic. As the left have been, since Trump came to power. Again we see hate being excused, when it comes from the left.

And the right wingers, like Nero, continue fiddle while Rome burns.
Trump is an insane, bezerk, crazed racist warmonger.
Who in their right mind would actually support him?

Andy wrote:And the right wingers, like Nero, continue fiddle while Rome burns.
Trump is an insane, bezerk, crazed racist warmonger.
Who in their  right mind would actually support him?

Well, not seeing Rome burn, nor any other city. Except of course Paris is on the verge of doing so.

So right wingers, as they have always done so. Speak out on wrongs by the right and in fact constantly condemn Trump. Which as seen is not good enough for the left. 

I think Corbyn, is an insane, antisemitic, Marxist, crazed terrorist supporter

Who in their right mind would support him Andy?

Yet the difference here, is the right, do not wish ill will onto the labour party members. They unlike you, wish to only be very critical of their undemocratic policies.

So there is millions that support Trump and castigating them into one group, through the eyes of hate that you see, achieves what exactly?

If hate and the undermining of democracy is your goal Andy, then what exactly democratic values do you stand for?

Raggamuffin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

To raise another incident in response to your own failure is to resort to the tu quoque fallacy (whataboutism).  If you want to change the subject, don't do it as if it's a response to this one.

And no, I'm not to admitting anything.  I made this a separate post to point out the tu quoque fallacy, to show that it is illogical.

You're the one who raised another incident - ie, you referred to the immigrant child in this thread, so you're the one who changed the subect. I sometimes wonder if you actually remember your own posts.

I believe I was responding to someone else.  Vintage raised the issue of politics in the second post, and the discussion deviated into Trump and the border children as an example.  That topic took off...a credit to Vintage in seeing a brilliant and popular direction.

There wasn't a whole lot of interest in the original topic, as I recall.  It was something about predictions.  No criticism intended to Andy, but you can never tell where a thread topic leads.  Maybe someone should do a study on what kinds of topics yield the widest range or scope of discussion.

Anyway Raggs, there is a difference between a meandering topic, and avoidance of a subject.  Resort to whataboutism is to abandon the original debate without resolution, and simply offer a counter issue.  It seems to have logic, but in reality it is simple avoidance of the original discussion.

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

You're the one who raised another incident - ie, you referred to the immigrant child in this thread, so you're the one who changed the subect. I sometimes wonder if you actually remember your own posts.

I believe I was responding to someone else.  Vintage raised the issue of politics in the second post, and the discussion deviated into Trump and the border children as an example.  That topic took off...a credit to Vintage in seeing a brilliant and popular direction.

There wasn't a whole lot of interest in the original topic, as I recall.  It was something about predictions.  No criticism intended to Andy, but you can never tell where a thread topic leads.  Maybe someone should do a study on what kinds of topics yield the widest range or scope of discussion.

Anyway Raggs, there is a difference between a meandering topic, and avoidance of a subject.  Resort to whataboutism is to abandon the original debate without resolution, and simply offer a counter issue.  It seems to have logic, but in reality it is simple avoidance of the original discussion.

No, you were not responding to someone else. You attacked me in this thread, off topic.

You haven't done yourself that proud when it comes to kids at the border, either. You seem happy that two children are dead.

You accused me falsely, so I responded and you got all arsy.

Raggamuffin wrote:No, you were not responding to someone else.

Yes I was. The debate started when Vintage said this:

Vintage wrote:Why ill wish someone because you don't like his politics, he's only there for four years at most before he can be legally voted out.

That awakened a thought I've been mulling over lately...namely, the demise of rule of law in America, due to the hegemony of politics. Indeed, I believe that Trump got into politics because he saw it as the only way to escape prosecution for the accumulating crimes committed in his life.

The assumption of Vintage, above, is the same assumption that Trump made: if you turn all your crimes into political efforts, you get a free pass.

A bank robbery will get you 15-years, but if you call it a demonstration against capitalist greed you'll get, at most, 15-days.

Then you jumped in with your "wishing ill on others" thesis. That led to a discussion about how you are wishing ill on innocent children at the southern border of the US.

Doesn't that refresh your recollection?

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:No, you were not responding to someone else.

Yes I was.  The debate started when Vintage said this:

Vintage wrote:Why ill wish someone because you don't like his politics, he's only there for four years at most before he can be legally voted out.

That awakened a thought I've been mulling over lately...namely, the demise of rule of law in America, due to the hegemony of politics.  Indeed, I believe that Trump got into politics because he saw it as the only way to escape prosecution for the accumulating crimes committed in his life.

The assumption of Vintage, above, is the same assumption that Trump made: if you turn all your crimes into political efforts, you get a free pass.

A bank robbery will get you 15-years, but if you call it a demonstration against capitalist greed you'll get, at most, 15-days.

Then you jumped in with your "wishing ill on others" thesis.  That led to a discussion about how you are wishing ill on innocent children at the southern border of the US.

Doesn't that refresh your recollection?

Vintage didn't mention immigrants, you did. I didn't wish ill on any children. You need to stop your filthy lies or expect to be pulled up for them. It wasn't a discussion, it was just another lie from you, but you made enough fuss about my reply.

You really don't care who dies as long as they're white. You don't even care about those migrant children - you just want to accuse Trump of a crime. Now stop trying to defend the indefensible - ie, your own posts.

Raggamuffin wrote:Vintage didn't mention immigrants, you did. I didn't wish ill on any children. You need to stop your filthy lies or expect to be pulled up for them. It wasn't a discussion, it was just another lie from you, but you made enough fuss about my reply.

I believe it was an example drawn from the thread about it, in the US Politics section.

There, you were arguing just the contrary thesis, that the dead children deserved what they got.  If that's not wishing ill on others, I don't know what is.

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:Vintage didn't mention immigrants, you did. I didn't wish ill on any children. You need to stop your filthy lies or expect to be pulled up for them. It wasn't a discussion, it was just another lie from you, but you made enough fuss about my reply.

I believe it was an example drawn from the thread about it, in the US Politics section.

There, you were arguing just the contrary thesis, that the dead children deserved what they got.  If that's not wishing ill on others, I don't know what is.

I didn't say the dead children deserved what they got. There you go with your filthy lies again. Andy did wish harm on Trump though, which you think is fine. What a hypocrite you are.

Anyway, you were off topic, you lied, and and you're still lying. Not much of a "discussion" is it?

I remember it differently. It's still up...go and check.

No where on that thread in politics did ragga say those children deserved what they got. You are guilty of false attribution, both of words and ideas........there must be a fancy legal term for that.

Lord Foul wrote:No where on that thread in politics did ragga say those children deserved what they got. You are guilty of false attribution, both of words and ideas........there must be a fancy legal term for that.

I disagree. Anytime you say or suggest a victim was to blame, you logically imply that the victim got what he or she deserved.

Get a good book on logic.

Original Quill wrote:I remember it differently.  It's still up...go and check.

As I said, you're away with the fairies. You just imagine things all the time.