MovieChat Forums > Donald Trump Discussion > John Kerry fights to keep migrants off o...

John Kerry fights to keep migrants off of his private beach

posted 5 years ago by onlyfactsmatter (256)
63 replies | jump to latest

Liberals being hypocrites again. What else is new? Liberals claim to be pro-migrant, but they always live in 95% white neighborhoods.

Under French law the country's coastlines must be accessible to all, similarly to Britain's "right to roam" rules.

But for decades Saint-Briac leaders have steadfastly refused to obey via a series of legal moves, in particular Senghor's predecessor Brice Lalonde — Kerry's first cousin.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/hikers-clash-with-john-kerrys-family-on-french-emerald-coast/ar-BBRsmc9

And LOL, Kerry's family is worried "about the 'terrorist risks' of allowing common people onto the beach as French law requires, and fretted that 'it will be fairly easy to target members of my family who are politically active.'"

I always joke that if a Socialist wins the lottery, he will do everything he can to avoid paying as many taxes as he can.

https://www.westernjournal.com/ct/john-kerrys-family-fights-border-security-palatial-french-villa-terrorism/

reply

[–] [deleted] 5 years ago

If only facts matter as your username implies you may want to correct your subject line to read "John Kerry's cousin Brice Lalonde fights to keep hikers off private beach" since the article is actually about Lalonde and not Kerry. Also I don't see where the restriction they're seeking is limited to immigrants but rather its looking to restrict access to all who don't have private ownership of the beach. This is likely to effect mainly local residents, not immigrants.

reply

[–] [deleted] 5 years ago

More nothing news from ifonlyfactsmattered.

Does it surprise you in the least that his whole post is completely wrong?

Having restricted access to beach property is rather common along the coastline of America. Just like making golf clubs 'private property' with restricted access. But he doesn't get it.

reply

[–] [deleted] 5 years ago

I'm originally from a coastal city and there were sections of private beach that were restricted, but the water itself was not (apparently while you could own the beach, you could not own the ocean). So technically you could walk along the shallow water down the entire beach and the private owners couldn't do anything about it. It seems like a similar issue being contested on this French coast. Ironically it's the non-full time residents looking to restrict as the article states it's the people who own second homes there that make many of the rules. If anything this is an issue of class warfare and not immigration.

reply

[–] [deleted] 5 years ago

Same with me, here in RI. There is a lot of beachfront property (but not the water, as you point out) in RI which is restricted access - especially in Newport and Watch Hill (two very ritzy coastal spots frequented by the very wealthy). Same with nearby MA - Cape Cod and the Islands. I'm sure the Bush family's coastal compound in Maine is 'restricted access' as well.

Again, a non-issue to say the least.

reply

[–] onlyfactsmatter (256) 5 years ago

Again, a non-issue to say the least.

It isn't when they're trying to open America's borders. That's the hypocrisy, but at this point it's not even hypocrisy it's outright evil. Also, the laws in France are different than in RI.

reply

[–] [deleted] 5 years ago

You’re comparing apples to oranges. It has nothing to do with American borders.

What’s hypocritical is T-rump’s golf club committing criminal activity by giving undocumented workers fake SS cards and green cards while he wants to build a wall. That’s hypocritical.

Next...

reply

[–] onlyfactsmatter (256) 5 years ago

You’re comparing apples to oranges. It has nothing to do with American borders.

Yeah rich privileged people deserve greatness - it should be the middle class that gets stuck with the illegal gang banging Mexicans.

reply

[–] eYeDEF (5050) 5 years ago

Maybe you need to get a better job so you can move out of your neighborhood when you hate your neighbors so much.

Oops, but that would require you to get a better education when you've already demonstrated yourself an academic failure.

Too bad. You had your shot and you blew it.

reply

[–] onlyfactsmatter (256) 5 years ago

I love how you assume that better education means someone can "upgrade" to white neighborhoods lol. I bet you also think minorities can't get ID.

reply

[–] eYeDEF (5050) 5 years ago

You sound really bitter that you can't make the cut. Oh well, too bad.

Should have done a better job pulling yourself up by your bootstraps to improve your lot in life. Now you'll just have to learn to love your neighbors or live a miserable life. Your choice.

reply

[–] onlyfactsmatter (256) 5 years ago

1. I mentioned it being Kerry's family. They also used their connection to John to justify being closed borders.
2. Kerry goes there a lot as well (read the article). Why doesn't he want them to open up more?

"According to a French biography of Kerry — who was US secretary of state between 2013 and 2017 — his American parents met at the estate before the war.

Kerry speaks French and has regularly spent time at the estate, most recently joining his relatives to celebrate its 90th year in the family last July."

to restrict access to all who don't have private ownership of the beach.

Yeah it sucks when people illegally come onto your property right? Way to totally miss the point.

reply

[–] [deleted] 5 years ago

Nope, I'm not missing any point. I simply pointed out that while your subject states John Kerry is fighting to keep migrants off his private beach, the article in fact doesn't say anything about John Kerry fighting this battle or it having anything to do with migrants. If only facts matter, why is the headline of your post a complete lie?

reply

[–] onlyfactsmatter (256) 5 years ago

They literally used his status as a politician and John himself has been there many times.

reply

[–] [deleted] 5 years ago

They literally used his status as a politician and John himself has been there many times.

Again:

1) Contrary to your post's subject, there is no indication in the article that John Kerry himself is fighting this battle (had Kerry been personally involved you can bet that would've been emphasized in the article), and
2) Contrary to your post's subject, there is no indication in the article that the goal is to keep migrants off the beach (especially ridiculous since many of the people trying to restrict access aren't even originally local to that area...in other words, they're the ones who migrated there).

You can keep trying to make it seem like I'm missing the point but I think you're missing the point which is your user name is onlyfactsmatter and you have two blatant lies in the subject line which are contradicted by the article you link to.

reply

[–] onlyfactsmatter (256) 5 years ago

1) Contrary to your post's subject, there is no indication in the article that John Kerry himself is fighting this battle (had Kerry been personally involved you can bet that would've been emphasized in the article), and

Once again, they are using his status as a politician to fight it. He visits there many times and as recently as July.

2) Contrary to your post's subject, there is no indication in the article that the goal is to keep migrants off the beach
Way to miss the point! I am just pointing out typical liberal hypocrisy.

reply

[–] [deleted] 5 years ago

Way to miss the point! I am just pointing out typical liberal hypocrisy.

Oh I know that's what you're trying to do, but you simply didn't do it because your subject line is untrue on both of its aspects: John Kerry isn't fighting this issue and the issue itself that is being fought has nothing to do with migrants.

Even in your post above you write "they are using his status as a politcian" which if true your subject line should read "Brice Lalonde invokes famous cousin's name...." instead of the simply false statements that John Kerry is personally fighting this issue.

reply

[–] onlyfactsmatter (256) 5 years ago

John Kerry lives in Martha's Vineyard. He's a bigger hypocrite than I thought. Why do all these rich liberals live on coastlines when they say climate change is going to destroy everything? Also, why does he live in a 95% white area? What a racist bigot!

reply

[–] [deleted] 5 years ago

John Kerry is 75...pretty sure climate change wouldn't be able to claim the Vineyard prior to his death. Not going to bother responding to your baseless claim that he's a bigot. Nothing in your post makes your blatantly false subject line any truer than it was before.

reply

[–] onlyfactsmatter (256) 5 years ago

John Kerry is 75...pretty sure climate change wouldn't be able to claim the Vineyard prior to his death.

Lol this is the greatest excuse I've ever heard. You're basically continuing to prove my point for me (liberals deserve special privileges).

reply

[–] [deleted] 5 years ago

Sigh...no....nothing like what I said.

reply

[–] eYeDEF (5050) 5 years ago

Why do you live in a multicultural area when you hate immigrants?

You're a bigger hypocrite than I thought.

reply

[–] onlyfactsmatter (256) 5 years ago

I'm cool with Americanized immigrants. It's the illegals who try to turn this place into their own country that I want out.

reply

[–] eYeDEF (5050) 5 years ago

You could always move. Aw shucks, but you can't afford it.

reply

[–] eYeDEF (5050) 5 years ago

LOLZ! French Law? Wrong country kid. Kerry has no control over what his cousins in France do.

WAHAHAHAHAH.

You're so desperate to paint liberals as hypocrites that you have to scour news in a different country and blatantly LIE!

You understand that this just makes you look like an even bigger buffoon right?

reply

[–] robocat893 (13822) 5 years ago

Trump supporters are hilarious! Just imagine how they are going to react when the House convenes in January and Pelosi starts going after Trump. I'm going to buy extra popcorn because this is going to be good.

reply

[–] Lord Rake (3884) 5 years ago

"Just imagine how they are going to react when the House convenes in January and Pelosi starts going after Trump."

reply

[–] eYeDEF (5050) 5 years ago

Amen.

reply

[–] Lord Rake (3884) 5 years ago

At least it's not Paul Ryan.

reply

[–] eYeDEF (5050) 5 years ago

I'm pretty sure the OP got triggered from the news today that federal prosecutors in New Jersey are going after Trump for hiring illegals on his golf courses.

So of course he has to dig up this report to try and paint liberals as hypocrites too. It doesn't really work though when it's in France and Kerry doesn't even have anything to do with any of it.

reply

[–] robocat893 (13822) 5 years ago

It must be very difficult for Trump supporters to watch the Toddler-in-Chief disintegrate right before their eyes.

reply

[–] onlyfactsmatter (256) 5 years ago

Trump supporters are hilarious! Just imagine how they are going to react when the House convenes in January and Pelosi starts going after Trump.

Going after political enemies is something Communists do, yes.

reply

[–] eYeDEF (5050) 5 years ago

Well that's something Trump has in common with commies then. No wonder why you love the man.

reply

[–] onlyfactsmatter (256) 5 years ago

When has he used his legal powers to go after political opponents?

reply

[–] eYeDEF (5050) 5 years ago

Numerous times. If you came out of your fake news bubble at Fox you would know this. Why are you such a commie lover?

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-12-04/trump-panel-seeks-higher-postal-shipping-rates-after-amazon-feud
https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/trump-personally-pushed-postmaster-general-to-double-rates-on-amazon-other-firms/2018/05/18/2b6438d2-5931-11e8-858f-12becb4d6067_story.html

reply

[–] onlyfactsmatter (256) 5 years ago

Lol that's it? I was expecting more. That's literally a nothingburger.

I was expecting how he appointed a Special Prosecutor on Clinton (which he should've did). On the other hand, you guys are literally salivating to opening up any investigation whether or not it's based on reality.

Just remember, Communists are not on your side. Most of Stalin's victims were previous friends and supporters.

reply

[–] eYeDEF (5050) 5 years ago

Oh there's plenty more. I'm just not going to do your research for you.

Like I said, climb out of your bubble.

Why are you such a commie lover?

reply

[–] onlyfactsmatter (256) 5 years ago

Trump is not an authoritarian and you and I both know it. In fact, if anything, it should be me who complains because I wanted a Special Prosecution on Clinton; on Feinstein and Dr. Ford; and a few others.

But I only want to do so when actual CRIMES happened. As in REAL things. Not doing it to search for a crime which is what Communists did - search for crimes. That's the difference, do you see now?

reply

[–] eYeDEF (5050) 5 years ago

Of course he's an authoritarian, you're just too stupid to and uninformed in your little right wing bubble to be aware of all the authoritarian things he's done or attempted to do.

reply

[–] eYeDEF (5050) 5 years ago

FYI: He did pressure Jeff Sessions into appointing a top GOP prosecutor from Utah, John Huber, to investigate Clinton.

As usual, you're just too stupid and ignorant to be aware of this because of course he found absolutely NOTHING so right wing media didn't report it.

reply

[–] onlyfactsmatter (256) 5 years ago

1. Clinton committed an actual crime (email server).
2. But he didn't do it and that's my point.

reply

[–] eYeDEF (5050) 5 years ago

1. She didn't, you're just too ignorant of the law to be aware of this. Mens Rea. Look it up since I'm sure you don't know what it means.

2. He did. You're just ignorant of what he did because you live in a right wing bubble.

reply

[–] onlyfactsmatter (256) 5 years ago

1. No Obama prosecutor would have taken the case. A Special Investigator could. If she didn't know it was wrong, why did she delete so much of it? Why did she go through great lengths to hide it?

Democrats as I said have immunity from the law. Lawrence Lewis was a chief engineer at a military veteran home. When it was flooding and full of sick veterans, Lewis diverted a sewage backup into a storm drain he thought led to the sewage treatment plant. Instead the drain led to a creek which fed into the Potomac River. Lewis was charged with criminal environmental infraction that did not explicitly require prosecutors to prove criminal intent. All he wanted to do was help retired veterans in a crisis situation and now he's a federal criminal.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052970204903804577082770135339442

Another example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bobby_Unser#Federal_criminal_charges

Racer Bobby Usner was driving a snowmobile near his ranch when he was caught up in a blizzard. He abandoned his vehicle to survive without realizing that in the blizzard he had wound up in a protected federal forest—a crime punishable by up to six months in prison.

Usner was vomiting blood and his friend was suffering from hypothermia. Didn't matter - still got convicted.

"but the court ruled that maps were widely available and it was a public welfare offense, thus intent was not necessary"

He appointed a Special Prosecutor on Clinton? When?

reply

[–] eYeDEF (5050) 5 years ago

You're an idiot. Unser got convicted of a MISDEMEANOR and was fined 75 bucks because he should have known better. Lewis was charged because he caused real harm.

There is no evidence that Clinton running a private mail server caused real harm. None. That's why Republicans worked so hard to find her hacked emails from her servers and never could, because they saw it as the holy grail. It could prove that real harm came from it because she got hacked.

Clinton not getting indicted for what she did was entirely consistent with US case law history for similar crimes:

https://www.politico.com/story/2016/04/hillary-clinton-prosecution-past-cases-221744

Again, you're just too stupid to be aware of this.

reply

[–] onlyfactsmatter (256) 5 years ago

There is no evidence that Clinton running a private mail server caused real harm.

Well yeah she deleted thousands of emails and destroyed her machines.

Even CNN had to admit Clinton destroyed evidence: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TwiMjLX_ABQ

Also, Josh Gerstein = automatic rejection.

"Petraeus’s admission to Broadwell, in a recording, that he knew information in the books was top secret, and his lying to officials, are significant points of differentiation with the Clinton case."

Lol Clinton said she didn't know the "C" meant Classified. How can anyone believe that BS? Even though she signed an SF 312: https://www.archives.gov/isoo/training/standard-form-312.html She also did not comply with this 312 and RETAINED her server. Lol at trying to say there's no intent.

When you're a Democrat, they let you get away with it. Grab em by the law pussy.

reply

[–] eYeDEF (5050) 5 years ago

Another lie by you. Never happened.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2016/live-updates/general-election/real-time-fact-checking-and-analysis-of-the-final-2016-presidential-debate/fact-check-trumps-claim-clinton-destroyed-emails-after-getting-a-subpoena-from-congress/?noredirect=on

reply

[–] onlyfactsmatter (256) 5 years ago

Trump’s timeline is correct. The congressional subpoena came on March 4, 2015, and an employee deleted the emails sometime after March 25, 2015, three weeks later.

https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/oct/09/donald-trump/donald-trump-says-hillary-clinton-deleted-33000-em/ (you're making me use Politifact here, ewwww! But I don't want you to claim bias)

They used Bleach Bit too. Then you have her constant lies, like one time saying she just had one device, then another time saying she had like 3. Then her aides destroying evidence with hammers.

This is why we needed a Special Prosecutor on her ass and Trump failed to deliver. One of the reasons I voted for him was to investigate the Clinton Cartel. If he doesn't I won't vote for him in 2020.

reply

[–] eYeDEF (5050) 5 years ago

Like I said, Trump pressured Jeff Sessions to appoint a top GOP prosecutor who found nothing. You're just too ignorant to know about it.

And it's hilarious to hear you complain about Clinton lies when Trump is a pathological liar.

reply

[–] onlyfactsmatter (256) 5 years ago

No, Sessions was just protecting the Deep State.

Trump could've appointed one, but chickened out when told there could be a backlash. If it were me, I would've opened up one on January 21, 2017.

Plus, apparently now we can search for crimes via a special prosecution. Remember, the private email server was found out due to the Benghazi investigation.

I mean they claimed 2 things:

1. That there was nothing relevant in those 33,000 emails. Yeah frickin right.
2. That they actually meant to delete them in 2014 but just had a brainfart, and it's just a coincidence they actually deleted them a week after being subpoena'd.

I mean how stupid do they think we are? The idiots caught on To Catch a Predator had better excuses than the Clinton Crime Cartel.

In July 2014, the State Department requested that Clinton provide all her work-related emails, including the e-mails on her private server, as part of an investigation.

Paul Combetta was one of the PRN employees managing Clinton's server.

This was posted July 24, 2014 on Reddit:

http://archive.ph/FXcao

]Hello all- I may be facing a very interesting situation where I need to strip out a VIP's (VERY VIP) email address from a bunch of archived email that I have both in a live Exchange mailbox, as well as a PST file. Basically, they don't want the VIP's email address exposed to anyone, and want to be able to either strip out or replace the email address in the to/from fields in all of the emails we want to send out.
I am not sure if something like this is possible with PowerShell, or exporting all of the emails to MSG and doing find/replaces with a batch processing program of some sort.
Does anyone have experience with something like this, and/or suggestions on how this might be accomplished?

When this was discovered, Paul frantically tried to delete all of the posts and his account.

Even though this evil person destroyed evidence and lied to investigators, the DOJ never revoked the immunity deal.

reply

[–] eYeDEF (5050) 5 years ago

Sure guy. I've noticed whenever political investigations don't end up the way you want them to end up, then there was a coverup and those involved were part of the 'deep state', even if those involved were diehard right wingers like Jeff Sessions and would have LOVED to have found something on Clinton.

It's such a pathetic cop out and just makes you look soooo stupid.

reply

[–] onlyfactsmatter (256) 5 years ago

even if those involved were diehard right wingers like Jeff Sessions and would have LOVED to have found something on Clinton.

See, you're ALMOST getting it. You're almost seeing there's no difference between Demoncrats and Republicons, but you're not seeing the forest for the trees.

I mean imagine if someone hired by Trump deleted thousands of emails after being subpoena'd, and another aide was caught destroying cell phone evidence. Or imagine if Kellyanne Conway or Ivanka met with the Attorney General on a tarmac during the height of the investigation.

As Obama said in April 2016, "Hillary Clinton had NO intention of hurting the country." They had the "no intent" part planned from the start.

She was never going to be prosecuted under Obama.

reply

[–] eYeDEF (5050) 5 years ago

Again, you're full of shit. Even your own link proves you're full of shit:

"However, the implication — that Clinton deleted emails relevant to the subpoena in order to avoid scrutiny — is unprovable if not flat wrong."

https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/oct/09/donald-trump/donald-trump-says-hillary-clinton-deleted-33000-em/

reply

[–] eYeDEF (5050) 5 years ago

BTW, further confirmation you're an idiot.

The president can't appoint a special prosecutor. That's up to the AG. You live in fantasy land thinking you could have done better than Trump.

reply

[–] onlyfactsmatter (256) 5 years ago

That's nitpicky. Trump could order the AG to do it if he wanted to, but he didn't want to. In fact, after the election he straight up said he wasn't going to do it. He was probably scared of the backlash and was still somewhat good friends with the Clintons (in his mind).

Trump, as the President, right now could go to the FBI headquarters and declassify every document he wants to.

If I were Trump, I would have showed no mercy and gone scorch earth day one. He on the other hand wanted to make friends.

reply

[–] eYeDEF (5050) 5 years ago

That's because you're an authoritarian and you're exposing your true inner-fascist.

That's not the way our system was set up or designed. If you were president you would have gotten your ass impeached already.

But at least now you've revealed your true self.

reply

[–] onlyfactsmatter (256) 5 years ago

Now look at Obama's wall:

https://i.imgur.com/yAoQdyO.png

Illegals coming is OK as long as they aren't near limousine liberals.

reply

[–] eYeDEF (5050) 5 years ago

Waaaah Waaah Waah!

Is your stupidity for real? So anyone against a wall on the southern border can't have a wall around their own place of residence now or it's hypocrisy?

Do you have ANY idea how dumb and desperate you sound?

reply

[–] onlyfactsmatter (256) 5 years ago

Is your stupidity for real? So anyone against a wall on the southern border can't have a wall around their own place of residence now or it's hypocrisy?

Obama is pro-immigration, as long as they don't live near him lol.

Obama is pro-spreading the wealth, except when he takes $400,000+ speeches and million dollar book deals and TV deals.

Obama thinks having too many houses is a problem, except when he buys them and when his wife buys $4,000 thigh high boots.

Obama says Trump mocked a disabled person, when Obama also mocked disabled people (at least Trump had a reason).

Obama says climate change is the worst thing ever, but flies in private jets, helicopters and wastes a lot of energy.

Obama says guns are bad, but has armed guards.

reply

[–] eYeDEF (5050) 5 years ago

Fake news.

You just made that all up. 😂

reply

[–] onlyfactsmatter (256) 5 years ago

What did I make up?

Obama is a racist bigot, instead of building a wall he should embrace those people who choose to enter his property illegally. Or maybe he can try doing other methods of helping stop the problem such as changing how he would treat a trespasser who is wanting to grab some of Obamas loot. Or maybe using technology like a loud speaker and it says "no robbers allowed."

reply

[–] eYeDEF (5050) 5 years ago

Fake news.

Your MO is very predictable and repetitive. Any time you get triggered you start making up lies on the spot that aren't even the slightest bit believable or grounded in reality.

That's because you know deep down that reality and facts don't support your BS.

It's hilarious.

reply

[–] onlyfactsmatter (256) 5 years ago

Now Bernie "Lack of female orgasms cause cervical cancer" Sanders is going to get Kavanaugh'd: https://www.politico.com/story/2018/12/30/bernie-sanders-campaign-harassment-1077014

The easiest target for feminists/women's rights idiots is the bitch-made lefty "males."

At this point if you're a white liberal male, you are automatically being stereotyped as a creep.

reply

[–] eYeDEF (5050) 5 years ago

LOOOOL!

I'm taking great pleasure watching you squirm in your increasingly desperate attempts to take the attention off Trump since you know he is the ultimate hypocrite.

reply

[–] ultravioletx (10216) 5 years ago

Another fake headline from a desperate Trump apologist.

reply