Jump to content

Donald Trump 2018


TheFlyingBoat

Recommended Posts

45 minutes ago, Pancho Negro said:

These two are nothing but a minstrel show to Republicans.

 

I can’t decide if they are too dumb to know this are very smart for knowing this.

Well from their testimony, apparently they don't know the difference between a company like Facebook being publicly traded vs. publicly owned or why that distinction matters.  They also think that FEC filings are "fake news."

This makes me want to go with the former.

On the other hand their parents are former televangelists, so it's likely all just a big money making scam.

Edited by Tom
Link to comment
Share on other sites

51 minutes ago, Pancho Negro said:

These two are nothing but a minstrel show to Republicans.

I can’t decide if they are too dumb to know this are very smart for knowing this.

They are YouTubers.   They have the market cornered on African-American women on YouTube who support Trump. The only thing they care about is views, because views equal money.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Brisketexan said:

This.

More than anything else....do people not realize how absolutely fucking pathetic this gang is?  A toddler narcissist surrounded by simpering sycophants with no self esteem.  If "pathetic" wasn't already a word, we'd have to invent it for these losers.

exactly...Trump and the gang, with a few notable exceptions, are nothing but effeminate egomaniacs with inferiority complexes, wholly lacking in any quality that makes a man a man.  it's fucking fascinating to watch.

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, atomheartbevo said:

They are YouTubers.   They have the market cornered on African-American women on YouTube who support Trump. The only thing they care about is views, because views equal money.  

Last I remember seeing, they don't get all that many views. As I recall it was in the 1000's per video. I don't remember how long ago that was, however. I also have no idea how much money YouTube will give you for videos with a few k views. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, trauma babe said:

Last I remember seeing, they don't get all that many views. As I recall it was in the 1000's per video. I don't remember how long ago that was, however. I also have no idea how much money YouTube will give you for videos with a few k views. 

 

^Stacks upon stacks of Best Buy coupons

Edited by retread
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, trauma babe said:

Last I remember seeing, they don't get all that many views. As I recall it was in the 1000's per video. I don't remember how long ago that was, however. I also have no idea how much money YouTube will give you for videos with a few k views. 

They cumulatively have over 21 million views with all of their videos.  Between twitter, Facebook, and Instagram, they have about 2.5 million followers.  Not too shabby, given that they probably have a hard limit on how many will follow them.

They probably pull down a few thousand a month for very little work just for YouTube ads (when you look at the body of their work), but they probably leverage that and their social media numbers into a lot more (they have some kind of speaking tour going on).

In other words, they are making a living getting attention and spouting off nonsense.  It seems to match their personalities perfectly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote

Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee (D-Texas) asked Hardaway if she had ever been paid by the Trump campaign. She said no.

“You’ve never been paid by the Trump campaign,” Lee deadpanned back, and Hardaway said no again.

“Not $5, not $100…,” Jackson said. “What about $1,274.94?” she said twice, to objections from Hardaway.

That figure is the amount that Donald J. Trump for President Inc. paid Diamond and Silk on Nov. 22, 2016, according to the FEC filings, which said the payment was for “field consulting.”

Richardson later called the figure "fake news" when questioned further by Rep. Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.). She acknowledged, however, that the two did receive that sum as reimbursement for air travel affiliated with a Trump campaign event.

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/04/26/diamond-and-silk-congress-hearing-1116887

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Fozzz said:

tbh kanye has always been a dumb asshole 

Of course. Kanye went to Trump tower to kiss the ring early on so nothing he does is surprising. Chance, though, has always come across as a really good, thoughtful person. The anti-Kanye.

He's "I'm just being both-sides nice"ing his way into supporting white supremacy, like so many unfortunately find themselves doing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

Of course. Kanye went to Trump tower to kiss the ring early on so nothing he does is surprising. Chance, though, has always come across as a really good, thoughtful person. The anti-Kanye.

He's "I'm just being both-sides nice"ing his way into supporting white supremacy, like so many unfortunately find themselves doing.

Chance is doing a lot of work for Chicago’s inner city. He hasn’t been red-pilled. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It makes no difference if Kanye or Chance or Diamond and Silk are completely sincere.  They are entitled to their opinions, and their skin color neither obligates them to hold a particular viewpoint nor validates Trump on issues relevant to other black people.   I think they're wrong, but it doesn't bother me to disagree with any of them. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Pancho Negro said:

These two are nothing but a minstrel show to Republicans.

 

I can’t decide if they are too dumb to know this or they are very smart for knowing this.

This is probably worthy of another thread. As a middle-aged white Texan male, my liberal political views probably break a few stereotypes. When I see those two gals, they're doing the same thing, but I can't help but think their thoughts aren't genuine. That makes me feel a little racist.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

I can't wait for midterms.  If just to end the speculation as to how this is going to shake out.  If we get to March of next year and Mueller hasn't released the hounds I'm giving up.

July is going to be the month I expect many things to hit the fan.

- Cohen indictment and/or plea deal

- Mueller releases obstruction of justice report

- Manafort trial #1 begins

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't understand the official comments that the Trump campaign didn't collude the Russians.  Donald Jr's meeting with the Russian lawyer is the definition of collusion.  Or at least Don Jr attempted as much as he could to collude.  If anything, the failure of the collusion was that the Russians couldn't produce enough dirt on Hillary.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's real bad news for Trump that HIC is admitting that the Trump Campaign expected to get dirt on Hillary from the Russians at the Trump Tower meeting.

They have backed up to the edge of the cliff.  It's gone like this.

There was no meeting with the Russians

The meeting with the Russians was about adoptions

The campaign thought they were going to get dirt from the Russians, but didn't

The next step is straight up treason.

Edited by kevwun
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

I don't understand the official comments that the Trump campaign didn't collude the Russians.  Donald Jr's meeting with the Russian lawyer is the definition of collusion.  Or at least Don Jr attempted as much as he could to collude.  If anything, the failure of the collusion was that the Russians couldn't produce enough dirt on Hillary.  

When I took Sports Law in college the textbook example of collusion was, "Competing parties get together in a hotel room and work up a way to manipulate the market to be beneficial for both parties."

The Trump Tower meeting was literally a collusion meeting. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Other than "nothing matters" I cannot see how Finding 32 isn't sufficient. As kevwun says, ineptitude isn't innocence and there was a clear expectation that a foreign "agent" was going to give them information to harm their opponent.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, sachick said:

Is there a legal definition of collusion? Or the is what constitutes collusion subjective?

No, the potential crime would be conspiracy to defraud the U.S. or commit some other crime.   "Collusion" is just a catch-all term that caught on to describe the alleged conduct.   But the real bottom line is, collusion should be enough to be a major political scandal, regardless of whether a crime is established.   If it isn't illegal for a campaign to knowingly help an enemy nation carry out a plot to take down the opposing U.S. presidential candidate, it should still be disqualifying for the presidency from a political standpoint. 

Edited by Mojo Hand
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Mojo Hand said:

No, the potential crime would be conspiracy to defraud the U.S. or commit some other crime.   "Collusion" is just a catch-all term that caught on to describe the alleged conduct.   But the real bottom line is, collusion should be enough to be a major political scandal, regardless of whether a crime is established.   If it isn't illegal for a campaign to knowingly help an enemy nation carry out a plot to take down the opposing U.S. presidential candidate, it should still be disqualifying for the presidency from a political standpoint. 

But....but.... muh gunnns! 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Mojo Hand said:

No, the potential crime would be conspiracy to defraud the U.S. or commit some other crime.   "Collusion" is just a catch-all term that caught on to describe the alleged conduct.   But the real bottom line is, collusion should be enough to be a major political scandal, regardless of whether a crime is established.   If it isn't illegal for a campaign to knowingly help an enemy nation carry out a plot to take down the opposing U.S. presidential candidate, it should still be disqualifying for the presidency from a political standpoint. 

Attempted collusion is illegal, the actual results of the attempt don't matter is how I understood it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, shnsajax said:

Attempted collusion is illegal, the actual results of the attempt don't matter is how I understood it. 

It is true that a criminal conspiracy need not be successful to be a crime.  But to be precise, "attempted collusion" doesn't really have a legal meaning, as far as I'm aware.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...