President Donald J. Trump - Term 1 Thread

Off Topic Babble. The really important stuff...

Moderator: Andrew

Re: President Donald J. Trump - Term 1 Thread

Postby K.C.Journey Fan » Tue Nov 14, 2017 3:04 pm

Monker wrote:
K.C.Journey Fan wrote:Well, he's being drug there kicking and screaming, but getting there. againb, Monker proven a liar.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/11 ... unsel.html


Which "certain issues"?


Like I've said, only an idiot would believe the investagations under Obama were not a stacked deck.
"Why can't you accept the FACT that Benghazi was investigated SEVEN times without any criminal fault to be dealt out towards Hillary? And, the last one was pretty much a REPUBLICAN investigation. You all are not just kicking a dead horse, but a horse that has been killed, burred, exhumed, kicked some more and reburied SEVEN TIMES. It is simply ridiculous."

Do I need to post the list of lies proven that clinton told under oath?
K.C.Journey Fan
Stereo LP
 
Posts: 3526
Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2011 6:19 am

Re: President Donald J. Trump - Term 1 Thread

Postby Monker » Tue Nov 14, 2017 7:55 pm

K.C.Journey Fan wrote:Which "certain issues"?


Like I've said, only an idiot would believe the investagations under Obama were not a stacked deck.[/quote]

Only an idiot would say such a thing about congressional investigation in a REPUBLICAN congress.

Do I need to post the list of lies proven that clinton told under oath?


If that is all you got than, no, you don't.

You can't even answer my question without a bunch of BULLSHIT.
User avatar
Monker
Digital Audio Tape
 
Posts: 9488
Joined: Fri Sep 20, 2002 12:40 pm
Location: Des Moines, Iowa

Re: President Donald J. Trump - Term 1 Thread

Postby The_Noble_Cause » Tue Nov 14, 2017 9:56 pm

Monker wrote:And, in the real world, an article is published linking Wikileaks and Jr., colluding and helping each other.
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/ar ... ks/545738/

Pppbblllllltttttzzzz (the sound of a giant orange head deflating.)


Jr. answered a few private messages from the Wiki twitter account over Twitter. So what? *I* have exchanged private messages with Assange over Twitter. Should I be locked up? If there is a nefarious Russian conspiracy afoot, would they really be talking over Twitter? So dumb.
"I think we should all sue this women for depriving us of our God given right to go down with a clear mind, and good thoughts." - Stu, Consumate Pussy Eater
User avatar
The_Noble_Cause
MP3
 
Posts: 12508
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2004 9:14 am
Location: Lake Titicaca

Re: President Donald J. Trump - Term 1 Thread

Postby The_Noble_Cause » Tue Nov 14, 2017 10:22 pm

Monker wrote:Now you are just flat out lying. "DNC debate cheating" had NOTHING TO DO with the conversation I posted that to.


Sending debate questions in advance to Hillary is cheating. Your response is that Donna may have also sent debate questions to Bernie, O'Malley. Guess what? That's also cheating. And if Donna did that, she could very easily release those emails. They don't exist.

Monker wrote:I don't give a fuck what YOUR opinion is. *I* was being asked about why I do not read WikiLeaks. THAT WAS MY ANSWER DUMBASS. Get over yourself already.


You sound testy because you keep getting caught in lies. This is Andrew's site, not yours. I am entitled to my opinion.

Monker wrote:No I'm not. I will never, EVER, register as a Democrat or Republican. If I were to ever register, I would register as a Libertarian...as I have said.


LOL. Standard bearers of the Libertarian movement, like Ron Paul and Lew Rockwell, openly laugh at the Russia nonsense. They are not on here propagating it chapter and verse like YOU. They are also talking about hard money and the Fed policy. When was the last time you discussed the fed? All you do is slobber the DNC's knob on a daily basis.

Monker wrote:As for the Emails, I do not know if she has the ability to "release" them since CNN OWNS THEM.


EXCEPT she used her own email account -"donna@brazileassociates.com" - to send out the debate questions.

Why would CNN own that?

You are on here masquerading like you know what you're talking about. You haven't a clue.

https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/5205

Monker wrote:But, the FACT is, you only know HALF the story...you do NOT know what was said to Sanders. THAT is a fact.


So why didn't Donna release those emails? Why didn't Bernie or his people release those emails? Furthermore, cheating is cheating. Why are you condoning it?

Monker wrote:I'm stating my opinion. It is not 'defending Hillary".


Making up lies out of whole cloth such as “She had permission to use a private server!” is not giving an opinion. Everybody here knows exactly what you are.

Monker wrote:I have absolutely NO PROBLEM with the debate schedule. I do not see it as biased. I do not see it as rigged


*Ahem* Back to Wikileaks…

“Through internal discussions, we concluded that it was in our interest to: 1) limit the number of debates (and the number in each state); 2) start the debates as late as possible; 3) keep debates out of the busy window between February 1 and February 27, 2016 (Iowa to South Carolina); 4) create a schedule that would allow the later debates to be cancelled if the race is for practical purposes over;…”

https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/5688

Monker wrote:I also think you are stretching your imagination if you think the debate schedule is why either were fired.


The debate schedule was just the tip of the iceberg. All sorts of corruption exposed. Not going to recap it here. You are simply ignorant.

Monker wrote:Also, NOTHING was stopping Bernie from donating to the DNC as well and allowing them to do more than barely get by.


I think your true “I’m With Her” colors are slipping again. Bernie has been prolific fundraiser for the Dems forever.
"I think we should all sue this women for depriving us of our God given right to go down with a clear mind, and good thoughts." - Stu, Consumate Pussy Eater
User avatar
The_Noble_Cause
MP3
 
Posts: 12508
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2004 9:14 am
Location: Lake Titicaca

Re: President Donald J. Trump - Term 1 Thread

Postby K.C.Journey Fan » Tue Nov 14, 2017 11:55 pm

TNC a simple he's stupid, just won't see because he keeps his head up would do. I'm glad you have time to respond to ALMOST all of his lies and bullshit. His best tatic is cherry picking and ignorring most of whats posted.
K.C.Journey Fan
Stereo LP
 
Posts: 3526
Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2011 6:19 am

Re: President Donald J. Trump - Term 1 Thread

Postby The_Noble_Cause » Wed Nov 15, 2017 12:39 am

K.C.Journey Fan wrote:TNC a simple he's stupid, just won't see because he keeps his head up would do. I'm glad you have time to respond to ALMOST all of his lies and bullshit. His best tatic is cherry picking and ignorring most of whats posted.



Yup. Claiming that Donna can't release emails because "CNN owns them" is such a breathtaking lie. The debate questions were sent from her Ipod using her personal account. Monker has no shame. He will say any lie, no matter how egregious, to cover for the Democratic Party. What a tool.
"I think we should all sue this women for depriving us of our God given right to go down with a clear mind, and good thoughts." - Stu, Consumate Pussy Eater
User avatar
The_Noble_Cause
MP3
 
Posts: 12508
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2004 9:14 am
Location: Lake Titicaca

Re: President Donald J. Trump - Term 1 Thread

Postby Monker » Wed Nov 15, 2017 3:40 am

The_Noble_Cause wrote:
Monker wrote:And, in the real world, an article is published linking Wikileaks and Jr., colluding and helping each other.
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/ar ... ks/545738/

Pppbblllllltttttzzzz (the sound of a giant orange head deflating.)


Jr. answered a few private messages from the Wiki twitter account over Twitter. So what? *I* have exchanged private messages with Assange over Twitter. Should I be locked up?


I don't know. I'm sure it depends on the content and the context of the exchange. Congress has tried to get the current administration to declare them a hostile intelligence service. Earlier this year, Mike Pompeo criticized Wikileaks using that same language. So, I would say at the very least you are putting yourself at risk of treason by communicating with them,

If there is a nefarious Russian conspiracy afoot, would they really be talking over Twitter? So dumb.


Do you really think those few Emails were the extent of the relationship? So dumb.
User avatar
Monker
Digital Audio Tape
 
Posts: 9488
Joined: Fri Sep 20, 2002 12:40 pm
Location: Des Moines, Iowa

Re: President Donald J. Trump - Term 1 Thread

Postby The_Noble_Cause » Wed Nov 15, 2017 3:45 am

Monker wrote:I don't know. I'm sure it depends on the content and the context of the exchange. Congress has tried to get the current administration to declare them a hostile intelligence service. Earlier this year, Mike Pompeo criticized Wikileaks using that same language. So, I would say at the very least you are putting yourself at risk of treason by communicating with them...


Ooooo scary. The government always tries to censor speech it hates.

Monker wrote:Do you really think those few Emails were the extent of the relationship? So dumb.


Yes I do. Same with Roger Stone's Twitter correspondences with Guccifer. This is very weak sauce.
"I think we should all sue this women for depriving us of our God given right to go down with a clear mind, and good thoughts." - Stu, Consumate Pussy Eater
User avatar
The_Noble_Cause
MP3
 
Posts: 12508
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2004 9:14 am
Location: Lake Titicaca

Re: President Donald J. Trump - Term 1 Thread

Postby Monker » Wed Nov 15, 2017 4:15 am

The_Noble_Cause wrote:
Monker wrote:Now you are just flat out lying. "DNC debate cheating" had NOTHING TO DO with the conversation I posted that to.


Sending debate questions in advance to Hillary is cheating. Your response is that Donna may have also sent debate questions to Bernie, O'Malley. Guess what? That's also cheating. And if Donna did that, she could very easily release those emails. They don't exist.


There is a difference between saying someone is "cheating" and saying an entire election was 'rigged'. My argument is that it was NOT RIGGED. There was obvious favoritism shown towards Clinton and Clinton set herself up to take over the party, but I do not see the election being "rigged" for her to win.

Monker wrote:I don't give a fuck what YOUR opinion is. *I* was being asked about why I do not read WikiLeaks. THAT WAS MY ANSWER DUMBASS. Get over yourself already.


You sound testy because you keep getting caught in lies. This is Andrew's site, not yours. I am entitled to my opinion.[/quote]

No, I feel like I have to treat you like a child and repeat things over and over again, quote them over and over again. And, you still can't hear or read what is right in from of you. The only person who was caught in a lie is YOU. I was not defending Donna Brazille. That conversation had NOTHING TO DO WITH HER. I was explaining why I do not read Wikileaks.

Monker wrote:No I'm not. I will never, EVER, register as a Democrat or Republican. If I were to ever register, I would register as a Libertarian...as I have said.


LOL. Standard bearers of the Libertarian movement, like Ron Paul and Lew Rockwell, openly laugh at the Russia nonsense. They are not on here propagating it chapter and verse like YOU. They are also talking about hard money and the Fed policy. When was the last time you discussed the fed? All you do is slobber the DNC's knob on a daily basis.


I do not identify enough with the Democratic party to register with them. Period. I indentify more with LIbertarian than either party. NOBODY here talks about the Fed. I *KNOW* Ron Paul has been very critical of Trump. But, that is irrelevant. I see Republicans as being incredibly hypocritical by saying they are for liberty, except when it comes to things like burning the flag, or sex, or sexual orientation, and all types of other topics which are personal moral issues that the government has no business getting involved with. And, Democrats, or liberals more specifically, want to use government to fix EVERYTHING...and spend way too much money in the process. Then there is foreign policy where again Republicans are hypocritical in they call themselves fiscal conservatives but want to spend outrageous amounts of money on war. Liberals seem to want it both way, to fight "moral" wars but also cut the military. The Constitution says to provide for the commen DEFENSE...not an offense to go abroad and "fix" everything, or to be a "super power" that spends more money on the military then the other top ten nations COMBINED.



Monker wrote:As for the Emails, I do not know if she has the ability to "release" them since CNN OWNS THEM.


EXCEPT she used her own email account -"donna@brazileassociates.com" - to send out the debate questions.

Why would CNN own that?

You are on here masquerading like you know what you're talking about. You haven't a clue.

https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/5205
[/quote]

And, that is assuming she only used that one Email account. You can argue this until your fingers bleed...the simple FACT is you do not know if she Emailed Sanders. You can imagine all of these scenarios but the fact still remains that you don't know.

That is my very point about CNN. If you actually READ what I said and you quoted, "I do not know if she has the ability to "release" them since CNN OWNS THEM." If she Emailed from CNN, they own them. If she Emailed from some other company, they own them. If that mail domain you quoted above is owned by CNN, they still own them. I don't know, you don't know, nobody really knows but her.

Monker wrote:But, the FACT is, you only know HALF the story...you do NOT know what was said to Sanders. THAT is a fact.


So why didn't Donna release those emails? Why didn't Bernie or his people release those emails? Furthermore, cheating is cheating. Why are you condoning it?[/quote]

I don't care "why". The FACT is you do not know if she did.

You WERE saying it was evidence that the election was RIGGED. But, now that you can't PROVE that, you are saying "cheating". Maybe if you would stop changing the point of things then arguments you start would make sense.

Monker wrote:I'm stating my opinion. It is not 'defending Hillary".


Making up lies out of whole cloth such as “She had permission to use a private server!” is not giving an opinion. Everybody here knows exactly what you are.


This has NOTHING to do with the LIE YOU MADE up that I was defending Clinton.

Monker wrote:I have absolutely NO PROBLEM with the debate schedule. I do not see it as biased. I do not see it as rigged


*Ahem* Back to Wikileaks…

“Through internal discussions, we concluded that it was in our interest to: 1) limit the number of debates (and the number in each state); 2) start the debates as late as possible; 3) keep debates out of the busy window between February 1 and February 27, 2016 (Iowa to South Carolina); 4) create a schedule that would allow the later debates to be cancelled if the race is for practical purposes over;…”

https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/5688


That is EXACTLY what I would expect the front runner of any election to say. There is probably an Emaol floating around saying that Bernie wants as many debates as possible, spread evenly during the primary season. It proves nothing other than Clinton was confident that she would win.

And, she didn't even get what she wanted since THEY ADDED THREE ADDITIONAL DEBATES.

Monker wrote:I also think you are stretching your imagination if you think the debate schedule is why either were fired.


The debate schedule was just the tip of the iceberg. All sorts of corruption exposed. Not going to recap it here. You are simply ignorant.


The debate schedule is nothing.

Monker wrote:Also, NOTHING was stopping Bernie from donating to the DNC as well and allowing them to do more than barely get by.


I think your true “I’m With Her” colors are slipping again. Bernie has been prolific fundraiser for the Dems forever.

[/quote]

How much did he donate during the campaign? Next to nothing? Or, just plain nothing? According to Brazille, the DNC was over $10,000,000 in debt...and HILLARY paid it off to gain control. Then, she kept paying the DNC enough to keep it afloat. According to Brazille, the DNC was desperate for more cash but Clinton was keeping it for her campaign. I am sure the DNC would have LOVED a few million dollars a month from Bernie...but I bet he was keeping it ALL for his campaign.
User avatar
Monker
Digital Audio Tape
 
Posts: 9488
Joined: Fri Sep 20, 2002 12:40 pm
Location: Des Moines, Iowa

Re: President Donald J. Trump - Term 1 Thread

Postby The_Noble_Cause » Wed Nov 15, 2017 4:55 am

Monker wrote:There is a difference between saying someone is "cheating" and saying an entire election was 'rigged'. My argument is that it was NOT RIGGED. There was obvious favoritism shown towards Clinton and Clinton set herself up to take over the party, but I do not see the election being "rigged" for her to win.


Splitting hairs now. Favoritism means the DNC was not impartial. If they are not impartial, then it wasn't a fair contest.

Monker wrote:No, I feel like I have to treat you like a child and repeat things over and over again, quote them over and over again. And, you still can't hear or read what is right in from of you. The only person who was caught in a lie is YOU. I was not defending Donna Brazille. That conversation had NOTHING TO DO WITH HER. I was explaining why I do not read Wikileaks.


You keep referencing some "specific conversation", but you have defended Donna and the DNC countless times on here. So it's meaningless.

Monker wrote:I do not identify enough with the Democratic party to register with them. Period. I indentify more with LIbertarian than either party. NOBODY here talks about the Fed. I *KNOW* Ron Paul has been very critical of Trump. But, that is irrelevant. I see Republicans as being incredibly hypocritical by saying they are for liberty, except when it comes to things like burning the flag, or sex, or sexual orientation, and all types of other topics which are personal moral issues that the government has no business getting involved with. And, Democrats, or liberals more specifically, want to use government to fix EVERYTHING...and spend way too much money in the process. Then there is foreign policy where again Republicans are hypocritical in they call themselves fiscal conservatives but want to spend outrageous amounts of money on war. Liberals seem to want it both way, to fight "moral" wars but also cut the military. The Constitution says to provide for the commen DEFENSE...not an offense to go abroad and "fix" everything, or to be a "super power" that spends more money on the military then the other top ten nations COMBINED.


Zzzzzz. I don't need a personal manifesto to know you are a Hillary shill.

Monker wrote:And, that is assuming she only used that one Email account. You can argue this until your fingers bleed...the simple FACT is you do not know if she Emailed Sanders.


Oh sure. And maybe she emailed Jeb Bush and Trump. Y'know, CNN has Republican debates also. :roll:

Monker wrote:That is my very point about CNN. If you actually READ what I said and you quoted, "I do not know if she has the ability to "release" them since CNN OWNS THEM." If she Emailed from CNN, they own them. If she Emailed from some other company, they own them. If that mail domain you quoted above is owned by CNN, they still own them. I don't know, you don't know, nobody really knows but her.


Laughable spin. Now you are claiming Donna can't legally release emails because debate questions are the property of Time Warner/CNN? :roll:

-If so, how come CNN didn't submit a copyright claim against Wiki for posting her emailed questions?

- How come Donna doesn't leak these other emails to the press to report on?

- Furthermore, why didn't Bernie or O'Malley say they also received debate questions in advance from her? O'Malley is a loyal Democrat. Even he said the whole thing was rigged.

Monker wrote:I don't care "why". The FACT is you do not know if she did.


You can make this claim about ANY leak to the press. You could argue that Ellsberg only released some of the Pentagon Papers to make Nixon looks evil. Let's focus on what we do know -Donna Brazile emailed debate questions in advance to Hillary. When exposed, she was condemned by CNN and fired.

Monker wrote:You WERE saying it was evidence that the election was RIGGED. But, now that you can't PROVE that, you are saying "cheating". Maybe if you would stop changing the point of things then arguments you start would make sense.


You have now gone from denying the election was rigged to playing semantic games. Give me a break.

Monker wrote:This has NOTHING to do with the LIE YOU MADE up that I was defending Clinton.


Sure it does. The idea that Donna cheated fairly (what an oxymoron!) with all the candidates has as much basis in reality as your "private server" lie.

Monker wrote:That is EXACTLY what I would expect the front runner of any election to say. There is probably an Emaol floating around saying that Bernie wants as many debates as possible, spread evenly during the primary season. It proves nothing other than Clinton was confident that she would win.


Nothing says "confidence" like limiting the debates, delaying them, and dumping them on lowly-watched Saturdays. :roll:

Monker wrote:How much did he donate during the campaign? Next to nothing? Or, just plain nothing? According to Brazille, the DNC was over $10,000,000 in debt...and HILLARY paid it off to gain control. Then, she kept paying the DNC enough to keep it afloat. According to Brazille, the DNC was desperate for more cash but Clinton was keeping it for her campaign. I am sure the DNC would have LOVED a few million dollars a month from Bernie...but I bet he was keeping it ALL for his campaign.


A dark horse candidate from Vermont with no name recognition is supposed to financially support the party? You're insane.
"I think we should all sue this women for depriving us of our God given right to go down with a clear mind, and good thoughts." - Stu, Consumate Pussy Eater
User avatar
The_Noble_Cause
MP3
 
Posts: 12508
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2004 9:14 am
Location: Lake Titicaca

Re: President Donald J. Trump - Term 1 Thread

Postby K.C.Journey Fan » Wed Nov 15, 2017 6:32 am

"There was obvious favoritism shown towards Clinton and Clinton set herself up to take over the party, but I do not see the election being "rigged" for her to win."

I'm sending this to Websters to use as an example of Stupidity.
K.C.Journey Fan
Stereo LP
 
Posts: 3526
Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2011 6:19 am

Re: President Donald J. Trump - Term 1 Thread

Postby Boomchild » Wed Nov 15, 2017 6:37 am

The_Noble_Cause wrote:
Monker wrote:I don't know. I'm sure it depends on the content and the context of the exchange. Congress has tried to get the current administration to declare them a hostile intelligence service. Earlier this year, Mike Pompeo criticized Wikileaks using that same language. So, I would say at the very least you are putting yourself at risk of treason by communicating with them...


Ooooo scary. The government always tries to censor speech it hates.

Monker wrote:Do you really think those few Emails were the extent of the relationship? So dumb.


Yes I do. Same with Roger Stone's Twitter correspondences with Guccifer. This is very weak sauce.


It's amazing how Monker seems unfazed by the actions of HRC and the DNC during the primary. In addition to Brazile's admissions you have the secret agreement between HRC org and the DNC. Which the DNC gave HRC the ability to "approve" positions for DNC operations. The document showed that it was directly tied to HRC's org contributions to the DNC. Hmmm....sound familiar? Can you say "pay to play" anyone? Now Monker's so concerned about Trump Jr communicating with Wkilleaks. Perhaps Monker has forgotten about or is unaware of what was discovered in HRC\Podesta email dump. It showed clear DIRECT communication between journalists and HRC staff about content of news stories. I believe it was journalists from both the NYT and TWP. In those emails the journalists were supplying information about articles they were going to publish and were looking for approval and\or input from HRC staff.

The only reason Congress and our justice department is looking to declare Wikileaks a hostile agency is because Wikileaks has been releasing information that shows the corruption in our government and it's actions that are not in the best interest of the citizens. In other words, Wikileaks is pulling back the curtain and showing the public what is really going on. I can see why our corrupt government doesn't like that.
"If the freedom of speech is taken away then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter." George Washington
User avatar
Boomchild
Compact Disc
 
Posts: 5838
Joined: Tue May 11, 2010 6:10 pm
Location: Pennsylvania

Re: President Donald J. Trump - Term 1 Thread

Postby Boomchild » Wed Nov 15, 2017 6:46 am

The_Noble_Cause wrote:
Yes I do. Same with Roger Stone's Twitter correspondences with Guccifer. This is very weak sauce.


Speaking of this, Stone was never given the chance to address his accusers directly. However, in a statement read to the investigative committee he set the record straight on this stuff. To the best of my knowledge no one has come forth with evidence that rebuts Stone's statements.
"If the freedom of speech is taken away then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter." George Washington
User avatar
Boomchild
Compact Disc
 
Posts: 5838
Joined: Tue May 11, 2010 6:10 pm
Location: Pennsylvania

Re: President Donald J. Trump - Term 1 Thread

Postby Monker » Wed Nov 15, 2017 7:26 am

Splitting hairs now. Favoritism means the DNC was not impartial. If they are not impartial, then it wasn't a fair contest.


"Not impartial" does not equate to rigged either. Donna Brazille herself freely admits that she favored Clinton. That as head of the DNC, it was her job to do what was best for the party and in her opinion, Clinton was a better candidate than Bernie.

Is that fair? Is that 'right'? Is that the way Democrats should handle independents entering their party to run in primaries? That is not up to me to decide because....I AM NOT A DEMORCRAT. I don't care.

But, what it is NOT is 'rigged'. If it were 'rigged', Bernie would not win caucuses - which are CONTROLED BY THE PARTY, primaries are not. Caucuses were Bernie's STRONGEST CONTESTS. In a rigged election, that would not be true. The debate schedule may be closer to what Clinton wanted than what Bernie wanted...but, they ADDED three extra debates, for a total of nine. I'm sure Clinton would have rather only had three or so. So, again, in a "rigged" election, Bernie would not be getting his way and things would be even more in favor of Clinton.

You keep referencing some "specific conversation", but you have defended Donna and the DNC countless times on here. So it's meaningless.


Quite lying. I have not defended Donna Brazille. The ONLY time I have brought her up was in context of an example of my opinion of Wikileaks, or to continously repeat it because you have a thick skull surrounding a bowling ball brain that doesn't read or take anything in context.

Zzzzzz. I don't need a personal manifesto to know you are a Hillary shill.


Then do not question my motives of saying I identify more with Libertarians than Democrats or Republicans and give examples of Libertarians who I may disagree with. If you don't want to know my philosophy, don't question it.

Oh sure. And maybe she emailed Jeb Bush and Trump. Y'know, CNN has Republican debates also. :roll:


Maybe she did. Maybe she Emailed ME. Maybe not. YOU DO NOT *KNOW* and are only guessing.

Laughable spin. Now you are claiming Donna can't legally release emails because debate questions are the property of Time Warner/CNN? :roll:


No, what I am saying is ANY Email she sent from CNN is the property of CNN. Check with the company YOU work for...any Email you send from your company account is THEIR property - not yours. And, you do not know what Emails she sent, from where, who owns them, and if she can legaly release them. NOBODY DOES but her.

You can make this claim about ANY leak to the press. You could argue that Ellsberg only released some of the Pentagon Papers to make Nixon looks evil. Let's focus on what we do know -Donna Brazile emailed debate questions in advance to Hillary. When exposed, she was condemned by CNN and fired.


Which does not equate to rigging an election.

You have now gone from denying the election was rigged to playing semantic games. Give me a break.


The election was NOT rigged.

YOU are changing your claims in the middle of a conversation. There is a big difference from saying Brazille "cheated" and saying she "rigged an election". It is not even "semantics"...it is a complete change in the conversation....and YOU are the one attempting to do it.

Sure it does. The idea that Donna cheated fairly (what an oxymoron!) with all the candidates has as much basis in reality as your "private server" lie.


I have no idea what you are even talking about here.

The "idea" that she "cheated fairly" was HERS, not mine. I used HER WORDS in an attempt to show your thick skulled, bowling ball brain, that I do not trust Wikileaks.

You may not like my reasons, but they are mine - not yours.

Nothing says "confidence" like limiting the debates, delaying them, and dumping them on lowly-watched Saturdays. :roll:


When was that note even written? Early in the campaign when she was ahead in the polls by 20pts or so?

Of course that is the schedule she wanted...to not give Bernie a chance to catch up. That is how ALL front runners act.

A dark horse candidate from Vermont with no name recognition is supposed to financially support the party? You're insane.


Then don't bitch about Bernie not having any power during the election...Clinton threw away tens of millions of dollars into the DNC and essentially financed it with her campaign during the election. You may not like her tactics but she ensured the DNC was in HER back pocket...and Bernie dropped the ball on it.
User avatar
Monker
Digital Audio Tape
 
Posts: 9488
Joined: Fri Sep 20, 2002 12:40 pm
Location: Des Moines, Iowa

Re: President Donald J. Trump - Term 1 Thread

Postby Boomchild » Wed Nov 15, 2017 7:56 am

Monker wrote:"Not impartial" does not equate to rigged either. Donna Brazille herself freely admits that she favored Clinton. That as head of the DNC, it was her job to do what was best for the party and in her opinion, Clinton was a better candidate than Bernie.


So are you saying that the voters shouldn't be the ones who choose who represents their party? That it is OK that it comes down to a handful or one person who is on the committee? If that's the case, then the party needs a name other then one with the word Democratic in it.
"If the freedom of speech is taken away then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter." George Washington
User avatar
Boomchild
Compact Disc
 
Posts: 5838
Joined: Tue May 11, 2010 6:10 pm
Location: Pennsylvania

Re: President Donald J. Trump - Term 1 Thread

Postby K.C.Journey Fan » Wed Nov 15, 2017 2:37 pm

Sometimes it's simply too easy to expose monker as a liar. Estabished FACTS, laid out, including the DNC shame job done on Sanders.

http://video.foxnews.com/v/564682458400 ... show-clips

Boomchild, 20 members in congress are now on sessions ass. Here are three of them. I think Trump will make him step down and soon.

http://video.foxnews.com/v/564684911500 ... show-clips
K.C.Journey Fan
Stereo LP
 
Posts: 3526
Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2011 6:19 am

Re: President Donald J. Trump - Term 1 Thread

Postby Monker » Wed Nov 15, 2017 4:18 pm

Boomchild wrote:
Monker wrote:"Not impartial" does not equate to rigged either. Donna Brazille herself freely admits that she favored Clinton. That as head of the DNC, it was her job to do what was best for the party and in her opinion, Clinton was a better candidate than Bernie.


So are you saying that the voters shouldn't be the ones who choose who represents their party? That it is OK that it comes down to a handful or one person who is on the committee? If that's the case, then the party needs a name other then one with the word Democratic in it.


No, I am saying this is a PARTY ISSUE. I am not a member of the party. Therefore, I DO NOT CARE. If Democrats want to change how Democrats nominate a candidate for President for the Democratic party - then DEMOCRATS need to decide if the chair of the DNC can favor one candidate over another. When people who are NOT Democrats start telling the party how to act, it's irrelevent bullshit. They do not vote for the candidate. They have nothing at st to do with it.

And, BTW, it was NOT that long ago when the party DID nominate the candidates. Republicans did the same thing.

Also, voters DID choose Clinton. THAT IS MY POINT. It was NOT "rigged" to where votes did not matter.
User avatar
Monker
Digital Audio Tape
 
Posts: 9488
Joined: Fri Sep 20, 2002 12:40 pm
Location: Des Moines, Iowa

Re: President Donald J. Trump - Term 1 Thread

Postby The_Noble_Cause » Thu Nov 16, 2017 12:02 am

Monker wrote:"Not impartial" does not equate to rigged either. Donna Brazille herself freely admits that she favored Clinton. That as head of the DNC, it was her job to do what was best for the party and in her opinion, Clinton was a better candidate than Bernie.


WRONG (as usual) – “The Chairperson shall be responsible for ensuring that the national officers and staff of the Democratic National Committee maintain impartiality and even-handedness during the Democratic Party Presidential nominating process.”


The difference between “rigged” and “cheating” is not a debate I am interested in. Initially, you denied ANY unethical behavior on the part of the DNC. That spin has now been shot to shit so you are engaging in stupid word games. Nobody cares. Elizabeth Warren said it was rigged. Debbie Wasserman was forced out when her cheating was exposed. Hillary was controlling all aspects of the DNC before she even the nominee. Party rules were repeatedly broken. End of story.

Monker wrote:But, what it is NOT is 'rigged'. If it were 'rigged', Bernie would not win caucuses - which are CONTROLED BY THE PARTY, primaries are not. Caucuses were Bernie's STRONGEST CONTESTS. In a rigged election, that would not be true. The debate schedule may be closer to what Clinton wanted than what Bernie wanted...but, they ADDED three extra debates, for a total of nine. I'm sure Clinton would have rather only had three or so. So, again, in a "rigged" election, Bernie would not be getting his way and things would be even more in favor of Clinton.


Blah blah blah. You went from having your head up your ass about this completely to now playing word games like a child. Here’s an idea… instead of rigged or cheating, maybe say there was “collusion” between the DNC and Hillary. That seems to be your favorite word these days anyhow.

Monker wrote:Quite lying. I have not defended Donna Brazille. The ONLY time I have brought her up was in context of an example of my opinion of Wikileaks, or to continously repeat it because you have a thick skull surrounding a bowling ball brain that doesn't read or take anything in context.


CNN doesn’t say Donna emailed the other candidates. In fact, they fired her ass. O’Malley, Webb, and Sanders have not said that they received debate questions from Donna. The press doesn’t claim it either. Only two people have said this: Donna and YOU. And as I have said, Donna could very easily release those emails.

Monker wrote:Then do not question my motives of saying I identify more with Libertarians than Democrats or Republicans and give examples of Libertarians who I may disagree with. If you don't want to know my philosophy, don't question it.


I’ve been involved with the Libertarian movement on many levels. I even produced a Libertarian radio show for several years and still have good friends involved in the party. None of them are ranting about Russia and defending Hillary. You are not a Libertarian. Just stop.

Monker wrote:Maybe she did. Maybe she Emailed ME. Maybe not. YOU DO NOT *KNOW* and are only guessing.


What is KNOWN is that she emailed debate questions to Hillary and her campaign. She got fired for it. The idea that these Podesta emails were selectively released is nonsense. THOUSANDS UPON THOUSANDS WERE RELEASED (many mundane and a few explosive).

Monker wrote:No, what I am saying is ANY Email she sent from CNN is the property of CNN. Check with the company YOU work for...any Email you send from your company account is THEIR property - not yours. And, you do not know what Emails she sent, from where, who owns them, and if she can legaly release them. NOBODY DOES but her.


We already went over this. The email she used is donna@brazileassociates.com

Re: From time to time I get the questions in advance
From:jpalmieri@hillaryclinton.com
To: donna@brazileassociates.com, balcantara@hillaryclinton.com
CC: john.podesta@gmail.com, Minyon.Moore@deweysquare.com
Date: 2016-03-12 19:41
Subject: Re: From time to time I get the questions in advance


https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/5205

So now your imaginary theory requires us to believe that Donna not only released emails to ALL candidates (still cheating), but that she used multiple accounts depending on the candidate? :roll:

Monker wrote:YOU are changing your claims in the middle of a conversation. There is a big difference from saying Brazille "cheated" and saying she "rigged an election". It is not even "semantics"...it is a complete change in the conversation....and YOU are the one attempting to do it.


Nobody on here was ever debating the difference between “rigging” an election in Hillary’s favor and “cheating” to ensure her win. Not a dime’s worth of difference anyway. You are just attempting to semantically muddy the waters because the DNC corruption has been exposed and you look like a Pollyanna dumbass.

Monker wrote:The "idea" that she "cheated fairly" was HERS, not mine. I used HER WORDS in an attempt to show your thick skulled, bowling ball brain, that I do not trust Wikileaks.


Donna is not here. You are the one posting repeatedly that Donna submitted debate questions to all candidates. This is YOUR viewpoint. And as mentioned already…

1) Leaking questions (to anyone) is still cheating
2) No candidates back this up
3) Donna could easily release those emails (or leak to the press)

Monker wrote:When was that note even written? Early in the campaign when she was ahead in the polls by 20pts or so?


Do your own research asshole.

Monker wrote:Then don't bitch about Bernie not having any power during the election...Clinton threw away tens of millions of dollars into the DNC and essentially financed it with her campaign during the election. You may not like her tactics but she ensured the DNC was in HER back pocket...and Bernie dropped the ball on it.


It’s about fairness, not power. Why aren’t you demanding that Obama financially support the DNC? Bernie was supported by small dollar donations. This is more sour grapes by you over the fact that Bernie stole Hillary’s liberal thunder. You were on here everyday saying Hillary would win and she lost. She’s a loser and so are you.
"I think we should all sue this women for depriving us of our God given right to go down with a clear mind, and good thoughts." - Stu, Consumate Pussy Eater
User avatar
The_Noble_Cause
MP3
 
Posts: 12508
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2004 9:14 am
Location: Lake Titicaca

Re: President Donald J. Trump - Term 1 Thread

Postby The_Noble_Cause » Thu Nov 16, 2017 12:10 am

Monker wrote: If Democrats want to change how Democrats nominate a candidate for President for the Democratic party - then DEMOCRATS need to decide if the chair of the DNC can favor one candidate over another.


DNC's own charter states that "the Chairperson shall exercise impartiality and evenhandedness as between the Presidential candidates and campaigns. The Chairperson shall be responsible for ensuring that the national officers and staff of the Democratic National Committee maintain impartiality and evenhandedness during the Democratic Party Presidential nominating process."

Drop the bullshit. This is just another issue where you are pretending to know what you are talking about.
"I think we should all sue this women for depriving us of our God given right to go down with a clear mind, and good thoughts." - Stu, Consumate Pussy Eater
User avatar
The_Noble_Cause
MP3
 
Posts: 12508
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2004 9:14 am
Location: Lake Titicaca

Re: President Donald J. Trump - Term 1 Thread

Postby Monker » Thu Nov 16, 2017 1:27 pm

The_Noble_Cause wrote:
Monker wrote: If Democrats want to change how Democrats nominate a candidate for President for the Democratic party - then DEMOCRATS need to decide if the chair of the DNC can favor one candidate over another.


DNC's own charter states that "the Chairperson shall exercise impartiality and evenhandedness as between the Presidential candidates and campaigns. The Chairperson shall be responsible for ensuring that the national officers and staff of the Democratic National Committee maintain impartiality and evenhandedness during the Democratic Party Presidential nominating process."

Drop the bullshit. This is just another issue where you are pretending to know what you are talking about.


Dude, you're a nut. Do you not understand that I am not a Democrat? I do not care about their charter. I do not care if Brazille gets kicked out of the party. This is a DEMOCRATIC PARTY ISSUE...and I am not a member of the party. I do not give a damn.
User avatar
Monker
Digital Audio Tape
 
Posts: 9488
Joined: Fri Sep 20, 2002 12:40 pm
Location: Des Moines, Iowa

Re: President Donald J. Trump - Term 1 Thread

Postby Monker » Thu Nov 16, 2017 2:12 pm

The_Noble_Cause wrote:
Monker wrote:"Not impartial" does not equate to rigged either. Donna Brazille herself freely admits that she favored Clinton. That as head of the DNC, it was her job to do what was best for the party and in her opinion, Clinton was a better candidate than Bernie.


WRONG (as usual) – “The Chairperson shall be responsible for ensuring that the national officers and staff of the Democratic National Committee maintain impartiality and even-handedness during the Democratic Party Presidential nominating process.”


I said nothing wrong. "As usual" you are trying to turn this argument into something else. All I am doing is repeating what Donna Brazille said. If it disagress and violoates the charter - complain to the DNC about it - not me. I'm not even a Democrat. and can't help you with your issues with your party.

Initially, you denied ANY unethical behavior on the part of the DNC.


That is simply a lie. I had not even commented on the topic until I used Donna Brazille as an example of why I do not read Wikileaks....and you twisted that into defending her, which I was not doing and is a lie.

Elizabeth Warren said it was rigged.


So, she's wrong...and she is a politician who may run in 2020 and saying stuff like this energizes her base.

Debbie Wasserman was forced out when her cheating was exposed.


And, I have never commented on it...and I have no reason to because I am not a Democrat.

Hillary was controlling all aspects of the DNC before she even the nominee.


I already said that.

Party rules were repeatedly broken. End of story.


Correct. It does not end with a rigged election.

CNN doesn’t say Donna emailed the other candidates.


That doesn't mean she didn't...you don't KNOW if she did or not.

In fact, they fired her ass.


Yeah, which has nothing to do with you not knowing if she Emailed the other Candidates.

O’Malley, Webb, and Sanders have not said that they received debate questions from Donna.


Again, it doesn't mean they didn't. I would never expect them to admit it anyway. In fact, even if they said they didn't they could be lying so they don't look like "cheaters".

The press doesn’t claim it either.


Again, irrelevent.

[qute] Only two people have said this: Donna and YOU.[/quote]

Not true. Donna said it and said I she said it.

And as I have said, Donna could very easily release those emails.


But, she doesn't have to and you still don't know if she Emailed the other candidates.

The fact is you do not know. Period.

I’ve been involved with the Libertarian movement on many levels. I even produced a Libertarian radio show for several years and still have good friends involved in the party. None of them are ranting about Russia and defending Hillary. You are not a Libertarian. Just stop.


Wow. So, to be a member of a political party (which I'm not, just to make clear), a person MUST agree with every body YOU know who is a member of that party. Wow, you are one powerful dude. Glad I'm not a member of any party and simply say I relate best to Libertarians and if I had to chose a party that is they one I would choose. I am sorry I do not meet your LIberarian standards. Not.


[quote[
Monker wrote:Maybe she did. Maybe she Emailed ME. Maybe not. YOU DO NOT *KNOW* and are only guessing.


What is KNOWN is that she emailed debate questions to Hillary and her campaign. She got fired for it. The idea that these Podesta emails were selectively released is nonsense. THOUSANDS UPON THOUSANDS WERE RELEASED (many mundane and a few explosive).[/quote]

And, isn't it amazing that you still don't know if she Emailed the other candidates? You just do not know.
Monker wrote:No, what I am saying is ANY Email she sent from CNN is the property of CNN. Check with the company YOU work for...any Email you send from your company account is THEIR property - not yours. And, you do not know what Emails she sent, from where, who owns them, and if she can legaly release them. NOBODY DOES but her.


We already went over this. The email she used is donna@brazileassociates.com


And, she could have used another to Email other people. And, who owns brazileassociates.com? You don't know. I tried to look it up and it seems to be private...oooooh, scary, maybe CNN owns it? Maybe FOX News owns it. Maybe *I* own it!

So now your imaginary theory requires us to believe that Donna not only released emails to ALL candidates (still cheating), but that she used multiple accounts depending on the candidate? :roll:


No, it simply requires you to understand that she probably has more than one Email account. I have three, right now.

Monker wrote:The "idea" that she "cheated fairly" was HERS, not mine. I used HER WORDS in an attempt to show your thick skulled, bowling ball brain, that I do not trust Wikileaks.


Donna is not here. You are the one posting repeatedly that Donna submitted debate questions to all candidates.


Not true...I have repetedly said that SHE said and you do not know.

[/quote]It’s about fairness, not power.[/quote]

No, it's about power...the power Clinton had over the DNC. The power Brazille had as chair.

Why aren’t you demanding that Obama financially support the DNC?


Because I am not a Democrat and have no reason to care.

With Sanders, you are claiming the election was rigged - it wasn't If you are going to bitch and whine about Clinton having so much power then you have to admit that if it was that important to Sanders, he could have donated to the DNC in a significant way and entered into an agreement as well. It's politics...politics doesn't play fair.
User avatar
Monker
Digital Audio Tape
 
Posts: 9488
Joined: Fri Sep 20, 2002 12:40 pm
Location: Des Moines, Iowa

Re: President Donald J. Trump - Term 1 Thread

Postby Fact Finder » Fri Nov 17, 2017 12:41 am

Is it just me...does Hill seem nervous? Did she make a veiled threat? Are her walls starting to tumble down all around?

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=bCWRVJoGUf0

Is Trump going to lock her up? :shock:
Only $5 Million more and I'll be a Greedy One Percenter.
User avatar
Fact Finder
MP3
 
Posts: 12258
Joined: Sun Dec 31, 2006 5:19 am
Location: Cincinnati, Ohio

Re: President Donald J. Trump - Term 1 Thread

Postby Fact Finder » Fri Nov 17, 2017 3:11 am

Senate Republicans say their investigation of Hillary Clinton’s role in approving a deal to sell U.S. uranium mines to a Russian company hinges in part on the testimony of a secret informant in a bribery and extortion scheme inside the same company.

The Senate committee searching for Clinton’s alleged wrongdoing is keeping their witness’s name cloaked. However, William D. Campbell, a lobbyist, confirmed to Reuters he is the informant who will testify and provide documents to Congress about the Obama Administration’s 2010 approval of the sale of Uranium One, a Canadian company with uranium mines in the United States, to Russia’s Rosatom.

At the time of the sale, Campbell was a confidential source for the FBI in a Maryland bribery and kickback investigation of the head of a U.S. unit of Rosatom, the Russian state-owned nuclear power company. Campbell was identified as an FBI informant by prosecutors in open court and by himself in a publicly available lawsuit he filed last year.

In a telephone interview, Campbell said he wanted to testify because of his concerns about Russia’s activities in the United States, but declined to comment further.

Campbell’s lawyer, Victoria Toensing, who has not previously identified her client, said despite Campbell telling the government ”how corrupt the company was,” Rosatom still got permission to buy Uranium One. She did not say what Campbell would reveal regarding any alleged wrongdoing by Clinton.

Clinton has said the Senate probe is an attempt to shift attention away from special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation into Russia’s alleged role in Donald Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign. As the heat from Mueller’s investigation has intensified, Trump has repeatedly called for an inquiry into Clinton and the Russian uranium deal.

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-c ... SKBN1DG1SB
Only $5 Million more and I'll be a Greedy One Percenter.
User avatar
Fact Finder
MP3
 
Posts: 12258
Joined: Sun Dec 31, 2006 5:19 am
Location: Cincinnati, Ohio

Re: President Donald J. Trump - Term 1 Thread

Postby S2M » Fri Nov 17, 2017 5:16 am

FFS! I feel as though I've stepped back in time, and walked in on a taping of Romper Room. You fucking kids are pitiful.

But you know what? You're proving my point with every post you make. And this, children, is exactly what the two-party system was invented for...division. Us vs. Them.

Republicans couldn't give a shit about Hill...just the 'D' beside her name. And Democrats, the same no fucks to give about Clyde, just the 'R' next to his...

Neither party has a fucking clear, concise message/platform, other than the almighty dollar. People go into civics/public service/politics for NO other reason than to make money. And you folks are perpetuating the cycle.

All I hear about are Hill's emails...or the 17 whatever-the-fuck-they-are, that KFC, and Santa Claus keep talking about...WHO GIVES A FUCK?!

Me? Since no one's asking, I'll chime in....I don't care if someone has a 'D', an 'R', or any other letter next to their name - if someone is shady...I want him/her gone. D, R, I, or Green. GONE. I have no loyalty to any party, and/or affiliate. How can someone back anyone who is shady? Whitewater, Trump University...WHATEVER. Sooner or later ALL politicos will have something nefarious in their dossier.

But you know something...if this country was doing well - I wouldn't care what the fuck the president was doing. During Slick Willie's tenure this country was doing amazing. I couldn't care less if he was getting some strange on the side. I had ZERO fucks to give. Today? This country isn't doing nearly as well, FOR WHATEVER REASON.

But it's great theatre watching you folks battling it out like you are in a Senate Sub-Committee on Senility, and its causes.
Tom Brady IS the G.O.A.T.
User avatar
S2M
MP3
 
Posts: 11896
Joined: Mon Jun 02, 2008 4:43 am
Location: In a bevy of whimsy

Re: President Donald J. Trump - Term 1 Thread

Postby K.C.Journey Fan » Fri Nov 17, 2017 6:45 am

S2M wrote:FFS! I feel as though I've stepped back in time, and walked in on a taping of Romper Room. You fucking kids are pitiful.

But you know what? You're proving my point with every post you make. And this, children, is exactly what the two-party system was invented for...division. Us vs. Them.

Republicans couldn't give a shit about Hill...just the 'D' beside her name. And Democrats, the same no fucks to give about Clyde, just the 'R' next to his...

Neither party has a fucking clear, concise message/platform, other than the almighty dollar. People go into civics/public service/politics for NO other reason than to make money. And you folks are perpetuating the cycle.

All I hear about are Hill's emails...or the 17 whatever-the-fuck-they-are, that KFC, and Santa Claus keep talking about...WHO GIVES A FUCK?!

Me? Since no one's asking, I'll chime in....I don't care if someone has a 'D', an 'R', or any other letter next to their name - if someone is shady...I want him/her gone. D, R, I, or Green. GONE. I have no loyalty to any party, and/or affiliate. How can someone back anyone who is shady? Whitewater, Trump University...WHATEVER. Sooner or later ALL politicos will have something nefarious in their dossier.

But you know something...if this country was doing well - I wouldn't care what the fuck the president was doing. During Slick Willie's tenure this country was doing amazing. I couldn't care less if he was getting some strange on the side. I had ZERO fucks to give. Today? This country isn't doing nearly as well, FOR WHATEVER REASON.

But it's great theatre watching you folks battling it out like you are in a Senate Sub-Committee on Senility, and its causes.


And the neighborhood socialist chimes in with a "can't we all get along". You guys do that when your not in power. Then you get power and it's fuck off, we've got this now. :roll: If you want the crime out of Washington, as I do, you should be on the Trump train. I bet you're on the resist train.
K.C.Journey Fan
Stereo LP
 
Posts: 3526
Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2011 6:19 am

Re: President Donald J. Trump - Term 1 Thread

Postby K.C.Journey Fan » Fri Nov 17, 2017 6:47 am

K.C.Journey Fan
Stereo LP
 
Posts: 3526
Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2011 6:19 am

Re: President Donald J. Trump - Term 1 Thread

Postby Boomchild » Fri Nov 17, 2017 7:52 am

S2M wrote:
But you know what? You're proving my point with every post you make. And this, children, is exactly what the two-party system was invented for...division. Us vs. Them.


Great. Except in reality the two party system you are referring to no longer exists. We now have a government that is in reality one party playing two card monte on the citizens. To put it another way, the Dems are one side of the coin and the Reps are the other side of the SAME coin. Perhaps we are witnessing is due to human nature, meaning self preservation. The fact that our society has become so self centric hasn't helped either.
"If the freedom of speech is taken away then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter." George Washington
User avatar
Boomchild
Compact Disc
 
Posts: 5838
Joined: Tue May 11, 2010 6:10 pm
Location: Pennsylvania

Re: President Donald J. Trump - Term 1 Thread

Postby The_Noble_Cause » Fri Nov 17, 2017 9:22 am

Monker wrote:Dude, you're a nut. Do you not understand that I am not a Democrat?


Based on what?

You repeating Donna Brazile's spin about her debate cheating?
You lying and saying Hillary had permission to use a private server?
You calling everyone you don't agree with Russian slurs?

You are a little Democratic bitch.


Here's an oldie but a goodie...

Monker wrote:And, yet she will still be the Democrat nominee and will beat Trump in a landslide...the last Clinton vs. Trump poll I saw had Clinton beating him by over 10pts. He has about as much chance at winning the election as Bernie has right now of winning the nomination.


LOL. Spoken like a true Libertarian, right? GTFOH :roll: :lol:
"I think we should all sue this women for depriving us of our God given right to go down with a clear mind, and good thoughts." - Stu, Consumate Pussy Eater
User avatar
The_Noble_Cause
MP3
 
Posts: 12508
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2004 9:14 am
Location: Lake Titicaca

Re: President Donald J. Trump - Term 1 Thread

Postby Fact Finder » Fri Nov 17, 2017 11:08 am

S2M wrote:FFS! I feel as though I've stepped back in time, and walked in on a taping of Romper Room. You fucking kids are pitiful.

But you know what? You're proving my point with every post you make. And this, children, is exactly what the two-party system was invented for...division. Us vs. Them.

Republicans couldn't give a shit about Hill...just the 'D' beside her name. And Democrats, the same no fucks to give about Clyde, just the 'R' next to his...

Neither party has a fucking clear, concise message/platform, other than the almighty dollar. People go into civics/public service/politics for NO other reason than to make money. And you folks are perpetuating the cycle.

All I hear about are Hill's emails...or the 17 whatever-the-fuck-they-are, that KFC, and Santa Claus keep talking about...WHO GIVES A FUCK?!

Me? Since no one's asking, I'll chime in....I don't care if someone has a 'D', an 'R', or any other letter next to their name - if someone is shady...I want him/her gone. D, R, I, or Green. GONE. I have no loyalty to any party, and/or affiliate. How can someone back anyone who is shady? Whitewater, Trump University...WHATEVER. Sooner or later ALL politicos will have something nefarious in their dossier.

But you know something...if this country was doing well - I wouldn't care what the fuck the president was doing. During Slick Willie's tenure this country was doing amazing. I couldn't care less if he was getting some strange on the side. I had ZERO fucks to give. Today? This country isn't doing nearly as well, FOR WHATEVER REASON.

But it's great theatre watching you folks battling it out like you are in a Senate Sub-Committee on Senility, and its causes.


Dude, just get a beer a join the fun. You are like buzz kill. Ya know you'll get a splinter in your balls straddling that fence. :wink:

If you choose not to decide you still have made a choice.

“There are no independent people. Even when you are standing aside, you are taking a side.”


“Washing one's hands of the conflict between the powerful and the powerless means to side with the powerful, not to be neutral. ”
Only $5 Million more and I'll be a Greedy One Percenter.
User avatar
Fact Finder
MP3
 
Posts: 12258
Joined: Sun Dec 31, 2006 5:19 am
Location: Cincinnati, Ohio

Re: President Donald J. Trump - Term 1 Thread

Postby K.C.Journey Fan » Fri Nov 17, 2017 1:22 pm

1. Roy Moore now has a defense. He was a Democrat when he did those things and that makes it perfectly acceptable.

2. I think the DOJ and Sessions have been caught in a lie defending Uranium One. John Soloman and Sara Carter are having none of it and will produce damning evidence next week hanging the Clintons and Russia. The informant is livid about his words being twisted, or out and out lied about, and has given Soloman and Carter what he had. He is also battleing Cancer. He even has video of the Russians calling Americans stupid while they open brief cases of money. Much of this went down when Hillary was a Senator. I think the lid is about one or two weeks from blowing off Boomchild.

3. Didn't take Dems very long to turn on Frankin did it? Rats deserting their ship. Glad to see he's done and by the same game liberals play.
K.C.Journey Fan
Stereo LP
 
Posts: 3526
Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2011 6:19 am

PreviousNext

Return to Death By Stereo

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests