Sean

Fear: Trump in the White House

Recommended Posts

27 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

... That comes with the recognition that your opponent isn't a shitstain just because they think something different. ...

There are lines and you're trying to say there are no lines. If you are on one side of the line, we can strongly disagree and I won't think you a shitstain. If you are on the other side of the line, you're a shitstain. It doesn't even matter if you didn't even vote for Shitstain.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the quotes are as represented a whole lot of people are choosing to protect the image of the Trump Presidency knowing he is grossly incompetent, unreliable, potentially wanting to undertake illegal actions and mentally unstable.   Either most of the white house staff is admitting to committing treason by attempting to cover up an incompetent 5th grade mental marshmallow in the white house for political gain, or they honestly feel a partially managed Trump is better then an unfettered Pence.    

Meanwhile Trump's White House allegedly wanted to overturn the executive orders of President Ford and Reagan making assassination illegal.   Either Congress decides to pass a law preventing such action, or the Republicans of both houses are tacitly saying they support US assassination of foreign leaders as long as the murderer is wearing a red hat.   

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Lark said:

  

Meanwhile Trump's White House allegedly wanted to overturn the executive orders of President Ford and Reagan making assassination illegal.  

Hold on a minute.  Maybe that could apply to Trump!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Lark said:

... committing treason by attempting to cover up an incompetent 5th grade mental marshmallow in the white house for political gain ...

Quoted because it needed to be said.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The NYT article is a stunning sequel to the excerpts from Woodward's book. Essentially what it comes to is that the senior administration is working to protect the United States from the President of the United States. One of the excerpts from Woodward quoted Kelly (I think it was) saying that he was working in Crazytown. i think really he should have said Crazycountry. It is  completely unbelievable that this is happening. If you saw it on a Netflix series you would just laugh it off as ludicrous. Anyone who still supports Trump needs mental health help, although as they say you can't fix stupid.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

what ya gona do 'bout it 'merica ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My guess, Trump orders polygraphs for all WH staff starting at the top.  The backlash should be immediate and intense.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Olsonist said:

A third of 'merica think they're winning.

 

Bumper stickers seen in on the same car in Jax today:  "Trump 2020" and "Hillary Lied"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Turn him over?  What crime was committed?  Trump is hoping to delay Woodward's book by adding another chapter?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Criticizing Trump is treason.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Sol Rosenberg said:

The non-supporting supporters must be proud, and the supporters especially so. The Pride of the GOP. 

Apropos fuck all but filed under The Annals Of A Mis-spent Youth. When me and the bros were kids we played hella Diplomacy. We read and exercised every rule but one situation we'd get into we couldn't figure out. Could you cut a supported support? Couldn't figure it out. So we wrote a letter to I think Avalon Hill and asked. They wrote back that they'd never considered it (!). They thought about it and added the rule that you could indeed cut a supported support.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My wife says it's Pence..... I say it's Sessions.... (Actually I said Pence first, but when it came down to betting money, she took Pence)....

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, phillysailor said:

Is it POSSIBLE to even consider Hillary outside of the hate-spew that tainted her?

I would argue that at this point it would be impossible to "fairly" judge her. To the extent that our president has muddied the waters through chants of "Lock her UP," and Director Comey made his unique decision to publicly chastise her yet declare her not indictable and the House investigations that went nowhere in order to drag her name through the mud for nearly a decade, the US Government has painted her an enemy of the state. And this doesn't even touch the impact of private and sponsored mudslinging.

I would argue that a saint subjected to this treatment would appear a leper. She didn't stand a chance getting a "fair" hearing.

With the amount of scrutiny that Hillary Clinton has received and the number of "investigations" that have gone on, if there had been something illegal to discover it would have been found.  People just need to move on and start looking toward how we can fix this country.  Trump and his recent supreme court nomination are certainly not helping.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, phillysailor said:

Welcome to the era of thoughtcrime

"The Party seeks power entirely for its own sake."

That statement by Trump is terrifying.

This creature needs to be removed from the presidency.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Cal20sailor said:

My guess, Trump orders polygraphs for all WH staff starting at the top.  The backlash should be immediate and intense.  

I'm telling ya, its #VeepThroat. Trump can't fire him, or do a damn thing about it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

Defensive when challenged?  Hmm - I'll have to consider that a bit.  When the challenge is based in an honest difference of opinion?  I don't think I am.  When the challenge is somone's specious assigment of intent to my comments that has no basis in fact?  I probably am.  Which do you think's been more prevalent in PA recently? 

Oh, the latter has ALWAYS been more prevalent in PA. That doesn't change the fact you are ALSO reacting defensively to the former. 

 

2 hours ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

That comes with the recognition that your opponent isn't a shitstain just because they think something different.  Now, if their behavior demonstrates that they ARE a shitstain?  It's quite fair to treat 'em lke that.  I like what you said - and think that I do try to afford most of the folks here that consideration when we enter into a discussion.  That consideration doesn't always remain intact, but, I do try to make it a starting point. 

Curious that you use the word "shit-stain" here. We have a difference in opinion on one such "shit-stain" and, frankly, their behaviour has been just as bad as those that you deride and treat as such. The only difference being that they're a shit-stain that agrees with you and didn't target your family for their reprehensible comments. 

No, this isn't to get you to change your mind on that matter (cos we know that's not going to happen). It's to point out that you have demonstrable bias as to how far someone can push their behaviour before you think poorly of them depending on whether they agree with you on (here at least) common political ideals. Which leads back into Bus Driver's question that you side-stepped. How bad does an opposing candidate have to be before one sides against Trump? 

And yes, when it comes to President, there really is only two sides. Protest votes and protest candidates don't go anywhere. There is going to be either a D or an R in the White House for the foreseeable future. One can waffle on about the theoretical possibility of a nationwide protest candidate getting up in the face of truly distasteful D & R candidates.... but you just had Hillary Clinton vs Donald Trump with nary an electoral college vote for ANYONE else. One may as well be postulating about the potential for time-travel through a wormhole - it's a purely hypothetical scenario that we have no chance of testing in our lifetimes. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Mrleft8 said:

My wife says it's Pence..... I say it's Sessions.... (Actually I said Pence first, but when it came down to betting money, she took Pence)....

 

I say it's Melania

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, dacapo said:

I say it's Melania

I doubt that's she's that involved..... I think she pretty much bowed out on election night, and has just been ghosting ever since.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, dacapo said:

I say it's Melania

Nah. She really doesn't care.

 

melania_trump_dont_care_jacket_embed.jpg

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Mark K said:

Related image

But doesn't everyone just say WTF does she know anyway?  Can't see it but her husband could have helped write it.  Maybe she wants a daytime talk show that deals with politics and oral hygiene.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Sean said:

Who stole the strawberries?

I thought the term was shit stain around here and not yellow stain?  Loved both the book and the movie.  

In this WH, it's more like, did you weigh it with the chain Doc?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Sol Rosenberg said:

It was Melania. 

I don't think her English is that refined, and who's gonna write it for her? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Cal20sailor said:

Lock me up.  

move over .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pence - he used a word "lodestar" near the end of the text. A clever reporter found out that Pence uses that word a lot in speeches. It's a very unusual word, and not one I've heard used in normal speech ever.https://www.huffingtonpost.ca/entry/lodestar-mike-pence-anonymous-new-york-times_us_5b905dd5e4b0511db3dec1e1

It's a pretty reasonable theory; though can't discount Melania analyzing Pence's speeches and picking up on it...

(As a Canadian observer at what point do you call this a "soft coup" - you seem to have most of the senior staff in the WH working against Trump?)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Cal20sailor said:

But doesn't everyone just say WTF does she know anyway?  Can't see it but her husband could have helped write it.  Maybe she wants a daytime talk show that deals with politics and oral hygiene.  

She has a lean and hungry look. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Zonker said:

Pence - he used a word "lodestar" near the end of the text. A clever reporter found out that Pence uses that word a lot in speeches. It's a very unusual word, and not one I've heard used in normal speech ever.https://www.huffingtonpost.ca/entry/lodestar-mike-pence-anonymous-new-york-times_us_5b905dd5e4b0511db3dec1e1

It's a pretty reasonable theory; though can't discount Melania analyzing Pence's speeches and picking up on it...

(As a Canadian observer at what point do you call this a "soft coup" - you seem to have most of the senior staff in the WH working against Trump?)

Pence becomes President if Trump is impeached or removed by the 25th Amendment.  I don't see where writing this makes his chances any better, particularly publishing it anonymously.  As someone said, Pence was elected.  He can call Trump the biggest fucking clown in the world and Trump can't get rid of him.  But, how does Pence ascend to the throne.  Could he possibly be banking on the 25th, because today's op-ed will not change Mueller's investigation.  Good catch on lodestar.  I'm sure folks in the WH are looking at writing patterns but whoever did this passed it through someone else to avoid obvious detection.  We'll know in a month.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Zonker said:

Pence - he used a word "lodestar" near the end of the text. A clever reporter found out that Pence uses that word a lot in speeches. It's a very unusual word, and not one I've heard used in normal speech ever.https://www.huffingtonpost.ca/entry/lodestar-mike-pence-anonymous-new-york-times_us_5b905dd5e4b0511db3dec1e1

It's a pretty reasonable theory; though can't discount Melania analyzing Pence's speeches and picking up on it...

(As a Canadian observer at what point do you call this a "soft coup" - you seem to have most of the senior staff in the WH working against Trump?)

The article also quotes an anonymous source as saying they borrow each other’s idioms to avoid detection.    It’s a tempting theory.    Pence is Marcus Junius Brutus, one of Trump’s last defenders, even as he prepares his 25th amendment knife for the Ides of March.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Deep Throat redux.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

well if its pence, i assume trump can't sack him . Whoever it is, Trump's Put a price on His/Her head :D

" If the GUTLESS anonymous person does indeed exist, the Times must, for National Security purposes, turn him/her over to government at once!"

 

At once!! :rolleyes:

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If we take Woodward and the anonymous OpEd in the NYT as substantive perspectives on Crazytown, I'm seeing maladministration everywhere Trump has influence. 

Not only do we have a president consorting with porn stars, repeatedly hiring crooks and demonstrating a pattern of failed business strategies & a preference for shyster tactics, we have his own lawyers calling him a liar and senior administration officials fucking hiding documents to divert the actions of a 5th grader with a nuclear arsenal and presidential edicts.

How does this not warrant exercising the 25th Amendment? How long can "conservatives" hold their noses and tolerate this abasement of American traditions of our being a nation of laws and a functioning democracy?

The Republicans have to solve this problem they've foisted upon America. They know Democrats will get down to business if they win the midterms, but that just divides the country further. 

As I see it, this is a GOP problem and should have a GOP solution. Clean your house, guys. Your dogs have shit all over the carpet and torn the drapes.

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Shortforbob said:

well if its pence, i assume trump can't sack him 

 

Nope, Pence was elected, not appointed.  He'd be my temporary hero if he just started tweeting negative shit about Trump on the hour.  But, he truly does appear to be a dickiess asshole.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Shortforbob said:

well if its pence, i assume trump can't sack him 

 

VP is elected not appointed. Won’t be fired. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Sol Rosenberg said:

VP is elected not appointed. Won’t be fired. 

Assasinated? This gets more Richard the thirdish every day. (Sorry Richard the third)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Shortforbob said:

Assasinated? This gets more Richard the thirdish every day. (Sorry Richard the third)

A white Christian?   That might soften Trump’s support with his base.   Plus Reagan has his eleventh commandment.   Though shall not murder a fellow Republican.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, phillysailor said:

If we take Woodward and the anonymous OpEd in the NYT as substantive perspectives on Crazytown, I'm seeing maladministration everywhere Trump has influence. 

Not only do we have a president consorting with porn stars, repeatedly hiring crooks and demonstrating a pattern of failed business strategies & a preference for shyster tactics, we have his own lawyers calling him a liar and senior administration officials fucking hiding documents to divert the actions of a 5th grader with a nuclear arsenal and presidential edicts.

How does this not warrant exercising the 25th Amendment? How long can "conservatives" hold their noses and tolerate this abasement of American traditions of our being a nation of laws and a functioning democracy?

The Republicans have to solve this problem they've foisted upon America. They know Democrats will get down to business if they win the midterms, but that just divides the country further. 

As I see it, this is a GOP problem and should have a GOP solution. Clean your house, guys. Your dogs have shit all over the carpet and torn the drapes.

Serious golf clap. Well stated. Thank you. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Olsonist said:

Apropos fuck all but filed under The Annals Of A Mis-spent Youth. When me and the bros were kids we played hella Diplomacy. We read and exercised every rule but one situation we'd get into we couldn't figure out. Could you cut a supported support? Couldn't figure it out. So we wrote a letter to I think Avalon Hill and asked. They wrote back that they'd never considered it (!). They thought about it and added the rule that you could indeed cut a supported support.

You need to cut back on the amount of that shit you are smoking.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Shortforbob said:

well if its pence, i assume trump can't sack him . Whoever it is, Trump's Put a price on His/Her head :D

" If the GUTLESS anonymous person does indeed exist, the Times must, for National Security purposes, turn him/her over to government at once!"

 

At once!! :rolleyes:

 

the comedians are better journos than the anchors

Kimmel said it was pence because the op ed uses the word lodestar - which is a bloody odd word to use.

The Jesus boys love it...

https://lodestarministries.com/about-us/

2.44 is Pence loving that word

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So,lock Pence up in the tower, Fire Kelly and Matis..install Ivanks and Don J..hell even Eric and Tiff...well..maybe not her.

Barron could step into the AG's role..pity Ivanks is married...she could be offered to Kim.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

seems to me that the GOP is in a lose-lose situation here.

If congress do nothing about the madness of King Trump and try to hang on until November, they risk a huge backlash at the polls..If they s25 trump, before November, they lose the 32% of Trumps immovable base though they may gain some of their "cant vote for trump" disillusioned republicans. 

Wonder whats in store today..it's nearly Twittertime.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, Shortforbob said:

seems to me that the GOP is in a lose-lose situation here.

If congress do nothing about the madness of King Trump and try to hang on until November, they risk a huge backlash at the polls..If they s25 trump, before November, they lose the 32% of Trumps immovable base though they may gain some of their "cant vote for trump" disillusioned republicans. 

Wonder whats in store today..it's nearly Twittertime.

It’s distraction time. Watch Simple Jack and his Doggo go to work. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Shortforbob said:

Wonder whats in store today..it's nearly Twittertime

 
 
Donald J. Trump
 
 
 
·
22m
 
Kim Jong Un of North Korea proclaims “unwavering faith in President Trump.” Thank you to Chairman Kim. We will get it done together!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, phillysailor said:

Is it POSSIBLE to even consider Hillary outside of the hate-spew that tainted her?

I would argue that at this point it would be impossible to "fairly" judge her. To the extent that our president has muddied the waters through chants of "Lock her UP," and Director Comey made his unique decision to publicly chastise her yet declare her not indictable and the House investigations that went nowhere in order to drag her name through the mud for nearly a decade, the US Government has painted her an enemy of the state. And this doesn't even touch the impact of private and sponsored mudslinging.

I would argue that a saint subjected to this treatment would appear a leper. She didn't stand a chance getting a "fair" hearing.

Thanks. That woman was qualified for the job, and he is unfit.

"Crooked" was a word used in projection, a grand lie...even so, on the day after a damning Mueller report, should one happen, lock him up is a very dangerous thing to cast out there. How did we get here? Burn the bitch down rhetoric brought us here, IMO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Sean said:
 
 
Donald J. Trump
 
 
 
·
22m
 
Kim Jong Un of North Korea proclaims “unwavering faith in President Trump.” Thank you to Chairman Kim. We will get it done together!

Well yesterdays news was surely effective..his Tweets seem more sinister today.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Shortforbob said:

And Trump responds

 

TREASON?

15,774 replies 5,690 retweets 15,017 likes
 
 
 
 
 

The Failing New York Times!

1:00
 
 
9,075 replies 6,525 retweets 19,512 likes
 

Mattis will just deny it so will a bunch of senior stall.  I used to ask why stay.  You don’t need the money and you’ll probably make more elsewhere.  Your rep will sky rocket, this is also your  likely last political gig anyway.

two things I think .  Some may have serious skellatons but others like Kelly are staying to help protect the Nation from Trumps  wqaaqqq

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Steam Flyer said:

Maybe the part where you posted a graph showing that ALL Democrats are "bad" and all far far left?

Go ahead, get angry at me some more.

-DSK

As if that happened - I don't post graphs, as without context, they're pretty meaningless. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, phillysailor said:

Is it POSSIBLE to even consider Hillary outside of the hate-spew that tainted her?

I would argue that at this point it would be impossible to "fairly" judge her. To the extent that our president has muddied the waters through chants of "Lock her UP," and Director Comey made his unique decision to publicly chastise her yet declare her not indictable and the House investigations that went nowhere in order to drag her name through the mud for nearly a decade, the US Government has painted her an enemy of the state. And this doesn't even touch the impact of private and sponsored mudslinging.

I would argue that a saint subjected to this treatment would appear a leper. She didn't stand a chance getting a "fair" hearing.

So - perpetual butthurt over the fact that I don't like Hillary blocks any further discourse?   You seem to be asking for consideration of individual Ds beyond the aggregate effects of party behavior, w/out being willing to afford the same consideration to those on the other side of the aisle.   Did you really mean what you said when you said that you need to try to respect your opponents, or was that just what you expected OF your opponents in their treatment of Ds?  
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Bristol-Cruiser said:

My should the Dems do anything differently to get your support? If you like what they are selling vote for them; if not, vote for Trump. Your choice. The Dems should have won in 2016 except they ran a very unattractive candidate, had a bad election strategy, and didn't get their vote out. Think you might do better next time?

I don't care if they do anything differently or not.  Many are proffering the idea that the only fix is "Vote D".  I disagree. I think that the fix is to first nominate viable candidates who can establish a platform that prioritizes the problems our country faces in a manner acceptable to most of the populace, and then to work an agenda that will pragmatically address those problems. 

If "Vote D" is the answer - then I want to know how the D candidates intend to accomplish what I expect.   Unless someone comes out of left field?  I don't see any Rs who's recent behavior would permit them an opportunity in 2020 to achieve what I expect. 

So - if there is a "D" who's experience, attitude and legisltaive priorities would build a working coalition that has a chance to close some of the ever-widening rifts and division the country has experienced over the past 20 years, to accomplish what I think we need, tell me who they are and what they're going to do.  If the Ds can't do that?  I'll wait for someone who can, partisan loyalty isn't working for any of us. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Olsonist said:

There are lines and you're trying to say there are no lines. If you are on one side of the line, we can strongly disagree and I won't think you a shitstain. If you are on the other side of the line, you're a shitstain. It doesn't even matter if you didn't even vote for Shitstain.

I understand what you're saying - and I'm not sure I can agree that I'm trying to say that there are "no lines" - I don't think that the lines are drawn where I understand YOU think that they are - and perhaps that's another point of discussion. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Bent Sailor said:

Oh, the latter has ALWAYS been more prevalent in PA. That doesn't change the fact you are ALSO reacting defensively to the former. 

 

Curious that you use the word "shit-stain" here. We have a difference in opinion on one such "shit-stain" and, frankly, their behaviour has been just as bad as those that you deride and treat as such. The only difference being that they're a shit-stain that agrees with you and didn't target your family for their reprehensible comments. 

That's a personal beef between you two - I think he went too far in trying to make his point, and that you made too much of a hypothetical, but, my opinion on this has no bearing whatsoever on how either of you perceive the situation. 

No, this isn't to get you to change your mind on that matter (cos we know that's not going to happen). It's to point out that you have demonstrable bias as to how far someone can push their behaviour before you think poorly of them depending on whether they agree with you on (here at least) common political ideals. Which leads back into Bus Driver's question that you side-stepped. How bad does an opposing candidate have to be before one sides against Trump? 

I didn't side-step Bus's question - I don't think that you have to "switch-sides" to oppose Trump, and that that fallacy will hinder efforts to effect a positive change. 

And yes, when it comes to President, there really is only two sides. Protest votes and protest candidates don't go anywhere. There is going to be either a D or an R in the White House for the foreseeable future. One can waffle on about the theoretical possibility of a nationwide protest candidate getting up in the face of truly distasteful D & R candidates.... but you just had Hillary Clinton vs Donald Trump with nary an electoral college vote for ANYONE else. One may as well be postulating about the potential for time-travel through a wormhole - it's a purely hypothetical scenario that we have no chance of testing in our lifetimes. 

I'm hopeful that BOTH parties nominate better candidates in 2020 than they did in 2016.  I'd love to have a choice between better ideas, rather than the choice being "which one stinks less".  If I don't?  I'm probably gonna become completely apolitical, and just check out.  I'm tired of all this BS and contention, I'm 52, not a kid anymore, and probably have 20 years left to enjoy life.  I don't think I want to spend them worrying stuff like this that I can't do much to impact.  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, phillysailor said:

Nikki Haley 

I think she would - but, suspect that she's not close enough to have this information.  Talking about potential candidates to oppose Trump for the nomination?  She's one I would seriously consider.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

So - perpetual butthurt over the fact that I don't like Hillary blocks any further discourse?   You seem to be asking for consideration of individual Ds beyond the aggregate effects of party behavior, w/out being willing to afford the same consideration to those on the other side of the aisle.   Did you really mean what you said when you said that you need to try to respect your opponents, or was that just what you expected OF your opponents in their treatment of Ds?  
 

Wow. 

“Perpetual butthurt” means you don’t respect me or my opinions. 

But please note, you did not come remotely close to answering my politely worded question. 

I will rephrase it, and please consider it. 

To what degree might your opinions have been manipulated by numerous House investigations which were ultimately fruitless exercises in mudslinging (we have now Mueller’s example of how to run an effective one vs the Nunes sham). And by Comeys decisions which always seemed designed to harm her. And “Lock her up?” And Wikileaks? And the RW hate machine?

The point is, all of these DID have an impact on Americans, but you still tell yourself you made an “unbiased” judgement of her. 

That’s naive. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, phillysailor said:

Wow. 

“Perpetual butthurt” means you don’t respect me or my opinions. 

But please note, you did not come remotely close to answering my politely worded question. 

I will rephrase it, and please consider it. 

To what degree might your opinions have been manipulated by numerous House investigations which were ultimately fruitless exercises in mudslinging (we have now Mueller’s example of how to run an effective one vs the Nunes sham). And by Comeys decisions which always seemed designed to harm her. And “Lock her up?” And Wikileaks? And the RW hate machine?

The point is, all of these DID have an impact on Americans, but you still tell yourself you made an “unbiased” judgement of her. 

That’s naive. 

I never said my opinion of her was unbiased, any more than yours of every Not D is unbiased. "Perpetual Butthurt"?  Yeah - that's what I think it is.  This isn't a new discussion, and we've both had time to decide whether or not the substance of the opinion is worthy of respect,  and we've both decided that the other is wrong.  Does your continual claim that my opinion is a result of me being willingly manipulated by "Lock her up?” And Wikileaks? And the RW hate machine?" mean that you don't respect me or my opinions? 

Why else would you inject dislike of Hillary Clinton into a comment that had absolutely nothing to do with her?  If there's a connection you think I'm missing, I'm happy to hear it. 

To answer your question - My opinions of Mme Clinton were formed much earlier, over a longer period of time than this last election cycle.  I have been in attendance at briefings where she's been present, and her behavior in those finished closing the door on my consideration of being able to support her. Did the "RW hate Machine" impact my opinion?  Probably - and that's likely because I wasn't immediately dismissive of every negative comment.  

Tell me please, how this little tangent applies to the topic - I'm not seeing it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, phillysailor said:

 

How does this not warrant exercising the 25th Amendment? How long can "conservatives" hold their noses and tolerate this abasement of American traditions of our being a nation of laws and a functioning democracy?

 

"Conservatives" are going to keep Trump in office as long as possible in their rush to force their agenda.  The have accomplished much that will shape the path of the USA for years to come.  They still have much to do, many lifetime appointed judicial positions to fill, environmental corporate regulations to eliminate, talk of more tax cuts for the 1%  and their heirs.  They will benefit for decades from what is being done in this 4 year term.  No trouble holding their noses and some tap out babysitting.  

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Fakenews said:

Mattis will just deny it so will a bunch of senior stall.  I used to ask why stay.  You don’t need the money and you’ll probably make more elsewhere.  Your rep will sky rocket, this is also your  likely last political gig anyway.

two things I think .  Some may have serious skellatons but others like Kelly are staying to help protect the Nation from Trumps  wqaaqqq

 

You really do have the ignorance of BG.  Everyone Senior member of Trump's staff could start work tomorrow somewhere else for more than twice their current salary.  Some, probably about 10x.  

WTF is a skellaton?  BG, give it up.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So you agree entirely with me.  That’s nice but it’s not necessary to say so. Get some of your own opinions.  Maybe it will help other  people not notice you’ve been posting here since 2004 but 95% of your posts are in the last 3 months.

That is seriously weird and bring all kinds of speculation to bear.

 

any ideas from the group?

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Fakenews said:

So you agree entirely with me.  That’s nice but it’s not necessary to say so. Get some of your own opinions.  Maybe it will help other  people not notice you’ve been posting here since 2004 but 95% of your posts are in the last 3 months.

That is seriously weird and bring all kinds of speculation to bear.

any ideas from the group?

You must be an accountant as you don't understand numbers.  I assure you 95% of my posts have not been in the past 3 months.  Bull, you need to get laid...and buy a chevy.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You may be right I may have confused yo with your nit wit buddy J28 but I think I’m close to beige right in your same as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Fakenews said:

You may be right I may have confused yo with your nit wit buddy J28 but I think I’m close to beige right in your same as well.

You're beige?  Mom stepped out on dad?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Cal20sailor said:

WTF is a skellaton?  BG, give it up.  

Something you keep in a klawzet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This whole writing a memo saying you didn't write the op-ed is surreal.  I held a TS clearance and took polygraphs related to national security annually.  If my boss had asked me to write a memo saying that I didn't say something about him, FUCK OFF, would have been my reply.  I'm embarrassed that ANYONE wrote such a memo for the 3rd grade Captain Queeg.  EMBARASSED!

 

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Cal20sailor said:

This whole writing a memo saying you didn't write the op-ed is surreal.  I held a TS clearance and took polygraphs related to national security annually.  If my boss had asked me to write a memo saying that I didn't say something about him, FUCK OFF, would have been my reply.  I'm embarrassed that ANYONE wrote such a memo for the 3rd grade Captain Queeg.  EMBARASSED!

 

 

Stable Genius. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The non supporters who defend him at every turn must be so proud. 

http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/405476-psychiatrist-trump-admin-officials-contacted-me-because-president-was

 

gotta hand it to the man. He dealt a swift death to the democRATS, but the one he is dealing to the Americans is far more slow and painful, and will likely be more enduring. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Sol Rosenberg said:

The non supporters who defend him at every turn must be so proud. 

http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/405476-psychiatrist-trump-admin-officials-contacted-me-because-president-was

 

gotta hand it to the man. He dealt a swift death to the democRATS, but the one he is dealing to the Americans is far more slow and painful, and will likely be more enduring. 

And he stands a good chance of destroying the Republican party too. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

That's a personal beef between you two - I think he went too far in trying to make his point, and that you made too much of a hypothetical, but, my opinion on this has no bearing whatsoever on how either of you perceive the situation. 

It wasn't his "hypothetical" that showed him to be a shit-stain. It was his statement that I am someone that would just stand there and watch - a remark about who I am personally, not a hypothetical. It was also his later statement that my wife enjoys being raped by bikies more than talking with me, because he knew the gang-rape of my wife was a trigger of mine & so he could get under my skin by hammering on that subject. Those are not "hypotheticals", but you ignore them as behaviour that indicates someone is a shit-stain because they came from the keyboard of someone you agree with.

Again, I'm not trying to change your mind there. I'm simply pointing out that your commentary that you treat people like shit-stains based on their behaviour is not correct. You treat people as shit-stains based on their behaviour and their political ideals. You have shown that shit-stain behaviour gets a pass on how you treat a person provided they are not actively disagreeing with you. That goes for most people here, but if you're being honest with yourself, you should own your personal bias.

 

10 hours ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

I didn't side-step Bus's question - I don't think that you have to "switch-sides" to oppose Trump, and that that fallacy will hinder efforts to effect a positive change. 

With all due respect, in your country and in regards to a person becoming President, if Trump is selected - you will need to "switch sides" in regards to your vote at least to effect a positive change unless/until the Democrats put up someone worse. As bad as Hillary was, it is very very hard to imagine a cogent argument that she would be worse, for example.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Kirwan said:

And he stands a good chance of destroying the Republican party too. 

That’s what I mean by Americans. He is dealing them a slow and painful death with each passing tantrum. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Kirwan said:

And he stands a good chance of destroying the Republican party too. 

You're new here? That's what he is referring to by "Americans". As in the country is split between DemocRATS and "real" Americans.

Sol is an acquired taste, but worth it in the end. Unless you're of the canine variety.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Bent Sailor said:

Sol is an acquired taste, but worth it in the end.

That’s what she said.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Lark said:

The article also quotes an anonymous source as saying they borrow each other’s idioms to avoid detection.    It’s a tempting theory.    Pence is Marcus Junius Brutus, one of Trump’s last defenders, even as he prepares his 25th amendment knife for the Ides of March.

Friends, UnAmercans, countrymen, lend me your ears;
I come to impeach Trump, not to praise him.
The evil that men do lives after them;
The good is oft interred with their bones;
So let it be with Trump. The noble Anonymous
Hath told you Trump was a fucking moron:
If it were so, it was a grievous fault,
And grievously hath Trump answer’d it.
Here, under leave of Anonymous and the rest–
For Anonymous is an honourable man;
So are they all, all honourable men–
Come I to speak in Trump's impeachment.
He was my friend, faithful and just to me:
But Anonymous says he was a fucking moron;
And Anonymous is an honourable man.
He hath brought many porn stars home
Whose ransoms did the general charity fund pay:
Did this in Trump seem a horny old goat?
When that the rich have cried, Trump hath cut their taxes:
Fucking morons should be made of sterner stuff:
Yet Anonymous says he was a fucking moron;
And Anoymous is an honourable man.
You all did see that on the FOX
I thrice presented him a kingly crown,
Which he did thrice took to Burger King: was this a fucking moron?
Yet Anonymous says he was a fucking moron;
And, sure, he is an honourable man.
I speak not to disprove what Anonymous spoke,
But here I am to speak what I do know.
You all did love him once, without cause:
What cause holds you then, to mourn for him?
O judgment! thou art fled to brutish beasts,
And men have lost their reason. Bear with me;
My heart is in Mar Lago there with Caesar,
And I must pause till it come tee time.
 
  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites