Jump to content

Donald Trump 2019


Francisco 2.0

Recommended Posts

7 hours ago, BradInATX said:

It's hilarious that rural white trash think they've somehow owned well-off white liberals by giving the liberals a tax break that could pay their trailer mortgage every month. Thanks for the 20% break on my pass through income, dipshit. I'm sure that S-Corp you and your wife have for her booming Lularoe business is really thriving now with Trump.

You just have to let them have it.

This.  My buddies quote was “Thanks for the money, rubes. I’ll think fondly of it as I drive my 7 series to vote straight ticket blue.”  He lives in North Arlington, VA, naturally.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Junior Miller said:

So what's going on here? Numb nuts have followed this racist idiot for this long and love him enough to go see him, but mid way through his ranting lunacy is the time they decide to say "I'm out"?

 

6 hours ago, RPM said:

They were only paid to be there for an hour.

 

50 minutes ago, Fudge Nuggets said:

Need to get to the Luby’s before there’s a wait. 

 

 

Considering he was in Louisiana on Monday, returning on Thursday means his cult is running out of gas dollars. In a prescient warning, from the President's speech on Monday evening:

Quote

"So is there any place you would rather be than at a Trump rally on a beautiful wonderful evening in Louisiana?"

Apparently the answer to that is, yes!

 

 

Today the President has an intel briefing and that is all. It's going to take two days of briefing before heading out to Bryant-Denny. Which sap is responsible for reminding him that the team with the large 'A' on their helmet is Alabama?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Aqua Buddha said:

Best part about the LA race is we always here that due to abortion and guns, these people simply can't vote Dem.  Edwards is a pro-life/pro gun Democrat.  It's what they supposedly want, right?

You should listen to some of the down ballot candidates in the LA races.   They go on and on about how pro-NRA they are and how marriage is between one man and one woman.  Then they talk about how the less government we have the better while in the same breath talk about their bold infrastructure plan.  It’s a hoot. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

Not directly related to trump but I fell into a YouTube trap of watching a handful of The Wire scenes. One of the suggested videos was Obama talking to the creator of the Wire about the effects of the Drug War. Could you imagine trump having a thoughtful discussion of any topic?  He’s supposed to know real estate development. Could he talk about a real estate issue and possible solutions for 5 minutes? I don’t think he could.

if trump has any depth to him, he sure as hell hasn’t shown it.

 

spacer.png

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

You should listen to some of the down ballot candidates in the LA races.   They go on and on about how pro-NRA they are and how marriage is between one man and one woman.  Then they talk about how the less government we have the better while in the same breath talk about their bold infrastructure plan.  It’s a hoot. 

Less government in their lives, not non-believers. Gotta whip them in line.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

Not directly related to trump but I fell into a YouTube trap of watching a handful of The Wire scenes. One of the suggested videos was Obama talking to the creator of the Wire about the effects of the Drug War. Could you imagine trump having a thoughtful discussion of any topic?  He’s supposed to know real estate development. Could he talk about a real estate issue and possible solutions for 5 minutes? I don’t think he could.

if trump has any depth to him, he sure as hell hasn’t shown it.

 

That is great, and to answer your question no there is not any topic that Trump could have a true thoughtful discussion on, and mainly because of his mental illness he doesn't listen and doesn't know how to think things through.

Oh he can regurgitate, parrot and make shit up, but a thoughtful heartfelt discussion is an impossibility.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, mdmost said:

READ THE TRANSCRIPT! DO SOMETHING! WHY NOT DONE?

The saddest part (for America) is that his stupid, rube followers actually think there's a transcript to read...of course most of them can't read anyway, so I guess it doesn't matter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, atomheartbevo said:

HAHAHAHAHAHA. IT WAS JUST EXPLAINED TO HIM.    HAHAHA

AHHAHAHAHAHAH

I know... I know... I know... I know this shouldn't bother me, but the effort to shift public opinion against the impeachment process as laid out in the fucking constitution just makes my blood boil.  Especially since most of the fuckers who will buy into this would go to war to defend other parts of that stupid piece of paper.

Edited by Chuckie Finster
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Listened to the Rational Security podcast this morning.  Outlining the defense.  Pretty simple.  President has a right to sleuth out corruption, because he is speaking for the US.  We, the country, have a legitimate interest in whether our enemies or allies are corrupt.  Just because Trump benefits politically doesn't render the request improper.

tenor.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Listened to the Rational Security podcast this morning.  Outlining the defense.  Pretty simple.  President has a right to sleuth out corruption, because he is speaking for the US.  We, the country, have a legitimate interest in whether our enemies or allies are corrupt.  Just because Trump benefits politically doesn't render the request improper.
tenor.gif

Counter argument: That’s not what happened.
  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Chuckie Finster said:

Especially since most of the fuckers who will buy into this would go to war to defend other parts of that stupid piece of paper.

By other parts, I assume you mean the ONLY part that matters to them...the NRA's revisionist 2nd Amendment.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, tantric superman said:

Listened to the Rational Security podcast this morning.  Outlining the defense.  Pretty simple.  President has a right to sleuth out corruption, because he is speaking for the US.  We, the country, have a legitimate interest in whether our enemies or allies are corrupt.  Just because Trump benefits politically doesn't render the request improper.

tenor.gif

Makes sense.  Who will begin the corruption investigation into Donald Trump on behalf of Joe Biden, Elizabeth Warren, etc.?  They have a legitimate interest in whether the current administration are corrupt or not! 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, tantric superman said:

Listened to the Rational Security podcast this morning.  Outlining the defense.  Pretty simple.  President has a right to sleuth out corruption, because he is speaking for the US.  We, the country, have a legitimate interest in whether our enemies or allies are corrupt.  Just because Trump benefits politically doesn't render the request improper.

tenor.gif

If Joe Biden wasn't running for POTUS, Donald Trump would have zero interest in anything Joe or his son had ever done.  None of this is about corruption.  Donald Trump not only doesn't care about corruption, he welcomes it.  Anyone who would argue otherwise is either stupid, a hopeless partisan, or both.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, tantric superman said:

Listened to the Rational Security podcast this morning.  Outlining the defense.  Pretty simple.  President has a right to sleuth out corruption, because he is speaking for the US.  We, the country, have a legitimate interest in whether our enemies or allies are corrupt.  Just because Trump benefits politically doesn't render the request improper.

tenor.gif

Still doesn't explain why he had his personal lawyer, who doesn't have the proper clearance, lead the effort.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, DixonHur said:

Still doesn't explain why he had his personal lawyer, who doesn't have the proper clearance, lead the effort.

Or why the request was for Zelensky to announce he was investigating Biden, as opposed to Zelensky actually investigating Biden.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, DixonHur said:

Still doesn't explain why he had his personal lawyer, who doesn't have the proper clearance, lead the effort.

Because Trump is dumb enough to think you run the federal government/State Department the same way he runs his personal businesses - have your fixers/lawyers handle negotiations and lean on people that you think owe you.  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, lemonlime said:

Or why the request was for Zelensky to announce he was investigating Biden, as opposed to Zelensky actually investigating Biden.

Well you see, it’s not about corruption, all he had to do was knock Biden down several points in the polls and have some talking points and zingers ready for the debates 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

Anyone who would argue otherwise is either stupid, a hopeless partisan, or both.

And how are any of the Republicans who will vote against impeachment not stupid or hopeless partisans?

I'm not trying to convince anyone here, and I obviously should have explained the bit from the podcast.  It was about how the arguments have morphed from "no quid pro quo" and how the Senate Republicans are much more comfortable with "sure quid pro quo but just because Trump is a fuckwit doesn't mean we can't justify the quid pro quo". 

A lot easier to argue "the law" when the facts are all against you.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, tantric superman said:

And how are any of the Republicans who will vote against impeachment not stupid or hopeless partisans?

I'm not trying to convince anyone here, and I obviously should have explained the bit from the podcast.  It was about how the arguments have morphed from "no quid pro quo" and how the Senate Republicans are much more comfortable with "sure quid pro quo but just because Trump is a fuckwit doesn't mean we can't justify the quid pro quo". 

A lot easier to argue "the law" when the facts are all against you.

 

Oh, I understand you were just relating their position.

I think the Democrats need to hammer the simple story that Donald Trump has zero interest in rooting out corruption and that ignorance of the law is no defense.  Keep up the pressure.  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

Not directly related to trump but I fell into a YouTube trap of watching a handful of The Wire scenes. One of the suggested videos was Obama talking to the creator of the Wire about the effects of the Drug War. Could you imagine trump having a thoughtful discussion of any topic?  He’s supposed to know real estate development. Could he talk about a real estate issue and possible solutions for 5 minutes? I don’t think he could.

if trump has any depth to him, he sure as hell hasn’t shown it.

 

That's because he's a fucking moron.  /Tillerson

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...