192
   

monitoring Trump and relevant contemporary events

 
 
farmerman
 
  4  
Sat 15 Jul, 2017 02:12 pm
@snood,
which resounds the point that shep made,ie"someday were gonna wake up" finn's opinion is good for a prolonged nap
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  0  
Sat 15 Jul, 2017 02:16 pm
@Olivier5,
I don't think you are laughing for the right reason, but I'm always glad when someone can laugh. It's good for the soul.
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  -2  
Sat 15 Jul, 2017 02:18 pm
@snood,
snood wrote:

That's funny. You posted to Finn that Shep Smith and Chris Wallace are among the growing number of reporters who are speaking out against the Trump clan's lies...
Rather than make any commentary at all about the real object of your post - namely that the endless lies are stirring growing opposition - he gives his unsolicited (and typically snotty) critique of the journalistic skill and credibility of the reporters you named. Such crap.



What's really funny is how clueless you are that in this post you have

Provided an unsolicited critique
Been snotty as hell
And are full of crap

Very Happy
0 Replies
 
Olivier5
 
  7  
Sat 15 Jul, 2017 03:49 pm
"Some day we're gona wake up." -- Shepherd Smith

http://statics.lesinrocks.com/content/thumbnails/uploads/2016/11/trump-cover-ok-tt-width-604-height-403-crop-0-bgcolor-000000-lazyload-0.jpg
ossobucotemp
 
  3  
Sat 15 Jul, 2017 04:08 pm
@Olivier5,
Back to you, liverlips..



No, no, not Olivier.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  2  
Sat 15 Jul, 2017 04:26 pm
@Olivier5,
Beautiful tie-in.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  5  
Sat 15 Jul, 2017 04:28 pm
I'm wondering how long before Trump finds cause to describe Interpol as a tool of Hillary Clinton and the "deep state".
ossobucotemp
 
  3  
Sat 15 Jul, 2017 04:35 pm
@blatham,
What a thought. I'd have to toss all my police procedurals...

I figure a lot of books are being outlined or written at speed..
blatham
 
  2  
Sat 15 Jul, 2017 06:26 pm
@ossobucotemp,
Quote:
I figure a lot of books are being outlined or written at speed..
I expect that is so. Yet, given the rapidity of revelations and the broadening areas of investigation, this would be a very dicey proposition.

I suppose we ought to note at this point (this for the dullards) that almost everything we now know (and most of what we'll come to discover) comes as a consequence of a lot of press working their asses off to bring information to light. Without an independent press, we'd mostly have just layers on layers of lies.
hawkeye10
 
  0  
Sat 15 Jul, 2017 07:16 pm
@blatham,
blatham wrote:

Quote:
I figure a lot of books are being outlined or written at speed..
I expect that is so. Yet, given the rapidity of revelations and the broadening areas of investigation, this would be a very dicey proposition.

I suppose we ought to note at this point (this for the dullards) that almost everything we now know (and most of what we'll come to discover) comes as a consequence of a lot of press working their asses off to bring information to light. Without an independent press, we'd mostly have just layers on layers of lies.

Now if only America had a halfway decent press. America does not get to Trump beating Clinton especially all surprised about it on election day with a functioning journalism corps.
glitterbag
 
  5  
Sat 15 Jul, 2017 08:20 pm
Does any one here speak Hawkeye? I don't recognize the dialect or he's weed-speaking....either way, it doesn't make any sense. Please help?

Oh and also, can anyone explain Finn's keen sense of humor?
ossobucotemp
 
  2  
Sat 15 Jul, 2017 08:37 pm
@glitterbag,
I think Finn is a good writer and thumb up at least once in a while. We tend to disagree routinely. I have probably gotten his humor on occasion. When was that? I've no idea. Maybe back in '32..
0 Replies
 
Blickers
 
  3  
Sat 15 Jul, 2017 08:38 pm
@hawkeye10,
Quote Hawkeye:
Quote:
Now if only America had a halfway decent press. America does not get to Trump beating Clinton especially all surprised about it on election day with a functioning journalism corps.

You are forgetting that of the five elections that were so close the popular vote winner lost the Electoral College, Hillary had by far the greatest plurality of popular votes?

Usually, the popular vote and the Electoral College winner are the same. Only in very close elections does it happen that the popular vote loser can sneak into the presidency, like he did this time. So it shouldn't be surprising that the predictions were a little off.

Not to mention that Trump's Russkie buddies did some probing into the voter rolls, who knows how many Hillary voters in key states were turned away from the polls?
layman
 
  -2  
Sat 15 Jul, 2017 09:46 pm
@Blickers,
Blickers wrote:

Usually, the popular vote and the Electoral College winner are the same. Only in very close elections does it happen that the popular vote loser can sneak into the presidency, like he did this time. So it shouldn't be surprising that the predictions were a little off.


Whether you win California, by far the most populous state in the nation, by 100%-0% or 50.1% to 49.9% doesn't make a damn bit of difference for electoral college purposes. Take away California, and Trump won the popular vote in all the other 49 states combined.

The polls weren't off because this was a close race, nor due to any failure on the part of the polls to understand the significance of the electoral college. Many polls were, for example, giving Clinton a 95% chance of winning Pennsylvania. That error didn't occur because it was a "close race." Their "winner" calculations were based on a state by state, even district by district, analysis, not on the popular vote, nationwide.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  -4  
Sat 15 Jul, 2017 10:55 pm
@blatham,
blatham wrote:
Sobering news:

We still do not know how far down Congressional Republicans and Trump supporters will go in defending this administration but there is every reason to assume it is much lower. There is no more telling indictment of the modern GOP and conservatism than this.

For as long as it remains clear that Trump and company have done absolutely nothing wrong, the American people will continue to oppose your witch hunt.

Not that you are ever going to find any wrongdoing, but if you ever did, the next question you'd face is "Why should anyone care after you let Clinton get away with all those felonies?"
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  -4  
Sat 15 Jul, 2017 10:57 pm
@snood,
snood wrote:
Even after resigning, Richard Nixon held about a 20% approval. Some folks just do not care.

Those of us who have ethics do not agree with the conduct of witch hunts against innocent people.


snood wrote:
As far as some are concerned the marmalade shitgibbon could shoot somebody down in public and not lose a bit of appeal.

That would depend on circumstances. Given the way that you object to police officers defending themselves from murdering thugs, I can well envision a circumstance where Trump shot someone, you threw a tantrum about it, but the American people were fine with it.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  -4  
Sat 15 Jul, 2017 11:01 pm
@snood,
snood wrote:
It's really breathtaking - the hubris...the absolute unmitigated gall.

Oh dear. Are we posting facts again that you find inconvenient?


snood wrote:
For months it was "No proof of collusion! No proof of collusion!"
The Don Jr email surfaced, and without missing a beat it became "Collusion's not a crime! Collusion's not a crime!"

Wrong. For months people have been telling you both that there was no proof of collusion and that collusion is not a crime. If you chose to pay no attention to facts when people point them out to you, that does not justify falsely accusing them of not having posted those facts.

And as it happens, those statements are correct. Being willing to listen when someone offers you damaging information about your opponent is hardly collusion, so there is still no proof of collusion.

And yes. Collusion is not a crime. So if you ever do manage to prove that there was collusion, don't expect anything to come of that.


snood wrote:
For months it was "No meetings with Russians! No meetings with Russians!"
Scores of meetings surface, and it becomes "Anyone would do it - it's just politics!"

In the absence of evidence of such meetings, it was perfectly reasonable to doubt that they happened.


snood wrote:
There is no shame. I hope they get held to account.

What sort of punishment would you like to impose on those of us who point out facts that you find inconvenient?

Liberals are Stalinists.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  -4  
Sat 15 Jul, 2017 11:04 pm
@farmerman,
farmerman wrote:
Think about it. Many of our friends herein have expended a lot of time and energy to defend Mr Trump . When their entire bases of defense begin to erode around them, the only thing they have left is to get mean and ugly.

The basis of our defense (which is to point out the reality that Trump and company have done nothing wrong) is not going to erode.

But if it did erode, we'd still have Bill Clinton to fall back on.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  -4  
Sat 15 Jul, 2017 11:08 pm
@blatham,
blatham wrote:
Getting rid of Trump is necessary, obviously.

More evidence that the Democratic Party needs to be outlawed in America. They're nothing but a bunch of traitors.


blatham wrote:
But that is nowhere near sufficient to salvage US politics. Nor is a Dem majority in the House. That Republican politicians and the party continue to support/defend Trump along with so many Republican voters tells us with utter clarity that the system is badly broken. I don't know how a sane realignment comes about short of some real catastrophe. I used to be optimistic but I no longer am.

Once the Democratic Party is outlawed, everything will be just fine.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  -3  
Sat 15 Jul, 2017 11:25 pm
@glitterbag,
glitterbag wrote:
Nixon had a group of die-hards that never admitted to themselves that Nixon abused the power of the Presidency.

That's because Nixon never abused the power of the Presidency.


glitterbag wrote:
Nixon pardoned not one of members of his merry bunch of thieves who willingly violated US law and any semblance of decency to keep that sociopath snug in the Oval Office. (they went to prison)

That was a big mistake on Nixon's part. He should have just pardoned all involved from the start.


glitterbag wrote:
Trump doesn't have the talent of a Nixon nor the smarts and he far surpasses Nixon as a power mad moron staring at a TV and plots dire paybacks to Talk-Show hosts or anybody who crosses him (real or imagined). But just like Nixon, he has a cast of supporters who cannot admit they support a corrupt and indecent man, they will hang in to the bitter end and even longer , because just like Trump and Nixon, they never make mistakes. Mistakes can only be made by the smug elites who think they are better than everyone else and frankly that's the crux of the matter.....

Trump may have made some mistakes. I think it was a mistake for him to not pardon everyone targeted by this witch hunt already.

The crux of the matter is that Trump has done nothing wrong. Neither for that matter has Kushner.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.43 seconds on 04/26/2024 at 02:53:09