Jump to content

Donald Trump 2018

TheFlyingBoat

By TheFlyingBoat
in Cloak Room

 Share

Recommended Posts

DixonHur

DixonHur 11296

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, Chad Fuck said:

No. 

A military coup would be an admission that our system has failed.  The civilians control the military, not the other way around.  Full stop.

What gives you hope that our system of Democracy hasn't failed?  None of the safeguards we have in place have worked.  Hillary got 3 million more votes, but lost.  The electoral college voted for Trump when this was a clear example of exactly what it was supposed to prevent from happening.  The SCOTUS has become totally political.  The congress votes in lock step with a traitor and actively works to prevent said traitor from being Impeached...instead threatening to Impeach the ones who are investigating him.  

Not a lot of winning.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Replies 44.5k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Hugo Stiglitz

    3593

  • retread

    1324

  • Brisketexan

    1195

  • jimmyjazz

    1186

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

M12BH
M12BH

SInce y'all seem to be my clearinghouse for all things political, let me tell a story.  A couple of them, actually.  Three, if you want to be specific. When I was 14 I went with a family frien

ConferenceRoom
ConferenceRoom
brown water
brown water

Slocum’s Razor

jimmyjazz

jimmyjazz 45898

Posted
Posted
Just now, Johnny Sack said:

Most of that is not due to gerrymandering.  It is because liberals are super concentrated in urban precincts.

Jesus, man.  Just fucking stop.  I see the effects of significant gerrymandering right here in Central Texas.   

Start using that brain of yours.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bat Guano

Bat Guano 359

Posted
Posted
7 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

People still don’t understand, Russia wins this battle NO MATTER WHAT.

Seriously, take your best case scenario for how this plays out and think about how Russia can spin that outcome in their favor.

Fortunately, the United States is still strong and Russia is still weak but this game is fucking already over.

Yeah, they've won the battle, but it ain't over and they can still run up the score a hell of a lot more.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Huckleberry

Huckleberry 32851

Posted
Posted
Just now, Johnny Sack said:

Most of that is not due to gerrymandering.  It is because liberals are super concentrated in urban precincts.

Yes, they just happen to be concentrated in single locations like this:

O1L3Djh.png

Wait, that doesn't seem very concentrated. I meant like this:

g2Ux5eB.png

Oh, that's right. Population concentration wouldn't cause what you're claiming on its own because the districts would simply be smaller. You're just full of shit.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Chad Fuck

Chad Fuck 17670

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, DixonHur said:

What gives you hope that our system of Democracy hasn't failed?  None of the safeguards we have in place have worked.  Hillary got 3 million more votes, but lost.  The electoral college voted for Trump when this was a clear example of exactly what it was supposed to prevent from happening.  The SCOTUS has become totally political.  The congress votes in lock step with a traitor and actively works to prevent said traitor from being Impeached...instead threatening to Impeach the ones who are investigating him.  

Not a lot of winning.

While I'm despairing at times, I'm not desperate.

We have an election to put on soon.  Let's see how that goes.

I don't think you are thinking clearly about the utter chaos and instability that a military coup would create.  It would essentially be an end to the U.S.A. and any moral high ground we may have would be permanently lost.  While no doubt we are currently losing face while Trump is president, while difficult to repair, it is not irreparable.  

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Hugo Stiglitz

Hugo Stiglitz 23367

Posted
Posted (edited)
7 minutes ago, Mojo Hand said:

They've won some battles, but they don't win the war unless we abandon our system of government.    They're the ones pushing coups and civil war 2.0s and assassinations and shit like that.   People need to resist overreaction; the strongest thing about our government is its mechanisms for peaceful transfers of power. 

The only way Russia loses anything is if we hurt them. (Sanctions, embargo, dead Russians).

That isn’t going to happen without real political will and courage. Fat chance of that happening with the invertebrates we’ve elected.

The only uncertainties now are how much will America lose and how much will Russia (and China) gain.

Edited by Hugo Stiglitz
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Lagunamadre

Lagunamadre 1975

Posted
Posted
7 minutes ago, AnonymousInternetPoster said:

Also, I didn’t “bail” on the thread. I went to lunch, dumbass.

I also stopped in at a university book store and asked for Trump’s new book.

Someone who likely was “hating” all my posts in this board was obviously triggered and yelled, “GET THE FUCK OUT!!!”

I said, “That’s it! Have you read it?”


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Aw, you gotta be kidding me. Lunch is for wimps. gordon-gekko.jpg

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
DixonHur

DixonHur 11296

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, Chad Fuck said:

While I'm despairing at times, I'm not desperate.

We have an election to put on soon.  Let's see how that goes.

I don't think you are thinking clearly about the utter chaos and instability that a military coup would create.  It would essentially be an end to the U.S.A. and any moral high ground we may have would be permanently lost.  While no doubt we are currently losing face while Trump is president, while difficult to repair, it is not irreparable.  

 

Perhaps not, but I'd certainly rather have Mattis in charge over Trump.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Dr. Teeth

Dr. Teeth 5844

Posted
Posted
7 minutes ago, Mojo Hand said:

Notice the all caps "MY"?  He's distinguishing whoever he believes from our actual intelligence agencies. 

That would be logical if he hadn't openly admitted today that one of his appointees, the DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE, told him the same thing. He doesn't even believe the people he believes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Huckleberry

Huckleberry 32851

Posted
Posted
Just now, AnonymousInternetPoster said:

Still better than HRC with a huge helping of snowflake, deranged Never Trumpers with full on TDS and pansy Liberal tears for dessert!

Run an IP check if you think I have any other username on this site because I don’t.

Now, fuck off, intolerant cry baby traitors. Hahahahaha!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That's an interesting thing to ask for now that you've switched to using your phone for posting.

Also, I negged you again. And I'll neg you every time you have a Tapatalk signature in your post.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jiggy-Z

Jiggy-Z 3432

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, Tuco said:

The FoxNews (website) coverage is fascinating.  It straddles more deftly than a young Stormy Daniels.

Main Headline: "Wild Finnish: Helsinki summit stuns world as Putin invites Mueller to Moscow, Trump blasts 'disaster' probe"  - It's a strong statement, but at the same time neutral.  And it misses what is "stunning" about the press conference.  The first line: " President Trump and Vladimir Putin both dubbed their highly anticipated summit Monday a success, though allegations of Russian meddling...quickly took center stage at a joint press conference."   1. Establish the meeting as a success, 2. Establish the investigation as a distraction to that success. 

Other stories under the main:

“RECAP: Putin admits he wanted Trump to beat Hillary; both agree there was no collusion.”  This is basically a collection of tweets, as far as I can see.

“Media slams Trump following Putin summit: “One of the most disgraceful performances by an American President.”  Then quotes Cooper (CNN), Baldwin (CNN), but, to their credit, eventually includes criticism by Brit Hume (FoxN), Trish Regan (FoxB), Neil Cavuto (FoxN), and Ben Shapiro. 

“Terror Expert Compares Reaction to Trump’s Russia Efforts to Obama’s: ‘It’s glaring Hypocrisy.”  This criticism was from US Army Special Forces Jim Hanson which referred exclusively to Obama’s hot mic moment of saying he’d be in better position to negotiate after the 2012 election. 

“ ’Absolutely Unbelievable’:Dem Strategist Blast Trump for Believing Putin Over US Intelligence”.  It doesn’t actually quote her on anything (there is a video that I assume does), but does discuss what she is reacting to (the President taking Putin’s word.)

Just reading the headlines, it make it seem like FoxNews is siding with President, and blaming the media and Democrats for overreacting.  But the article themselves hedge that position, and include actual criticism from conservative sources.

 

 

I listen to KLBJ AM for the afternoon drive to catch Jeff Ward and Ed , just because NPR starts to repeat themselves by then.

 

....anyway I went to work this morning and did not have my radio on but turned it on when I went to lunch and it was still on 590 from Friday.  Caught the tale end of Rush and some locals after that.  Man that was some grade A bullshit.  I get that the local hosts have their talking points, but the callers are pretty scary.  I guess I'm used to Jeff and Ed shutting down any nuttiness, but not these guys.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
AnonymousInternetPoster

AnonymousInternetPoster 163

Posted
Posted
That's an interesting thing to ask for now that you've switched to using your phone for posting.
Also, I negged you again. And I'll neg you every time you have a Tapatalk signature in your post.

Good. I’ll keep it there then. I’m on my phone because I’m at the dealership, where I came straight from lunch. Dumbass.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
  • Fuck You 13
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Huckleberry

Huckleberry 32851

Posted
Posted (edited)
4 minutes ago, AnonymousInternetPoster said:


Good. I’ll keep it there then. I’m on my phone because I’m at the dealership, where I came straight from lunch. Dumbass.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Sounds good, enjoy your time at the dealership. Have you noticed that it's not even necessary for me to call you names? Ever wonder why that is?

Edited by Huckleberry
I guess someone else has probably called you a name on here before so I rephrased.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Huckleberry

Huckleberry 32851

Posted
Posted
Just now, AnonymousInternetPoster said:


It wouldn’t matter to me. Just like it doesn’t matter to me about rep. Dumbass.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That's the 7th time you've told us you don't care. Maybe you can get together with my 8-year-old niece and hang out. Y'all have a lot in common.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
babysdaddy

babysdaddy 2721

Posted
Posted
6 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

25?  Try 35:

Image result for texas congressional districts 35

How does this even happen?  One assumption I've always had when reading about gerrymandering is it is done specifically to help republicans.  Maybe this does help them out overall but I was surprised to see this district was represented by Dogett who is a D.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
MaybeACoordinator

MaybeACoordinator 8349

Posted
Posted
12 minutes ago, AnonymousInternetPoster said:

Still better than HRC with a huge helping of snowflake, deranged Never Trumpers with full on TDS and pansy Liberal tears for dessert!

Run an IP check if you think I have any other username on this site because I don’t.

Now, fuck off, intolerant cry baby traitors. Hahahahaha!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I'm all out of neg for the day but I am enjoying see you go deeper and deeper in the red every time I refresh the screen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Huckleberry

Huckleberry 32851

Posted
Posted (edited)
4 minutes ago, babysdaddy said:

How does this even happen?  One assumption I've always had when reading about gerrymandering is it is done specifically to help republicans.  Maybe this does help them out overall but I was surprised to see this district was represented by Dogett who is a D.

The gerrymandering party concentrates all the votes for the other party in a few districts so they can win more of the remaining districts.

If you have 100 voters for each party in an area and 4 districts then if you're gerrymandering you put 50 of those voters in one district and 16 or 17 in each of the remaining three districts. This way despite having a 50/50 split in votes you guarantee your party a 3-to-1 advantage.

That's the general theory, at least.

Edited by Huckleberry
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bat Guano

Bat Guano 359

Posted
Posted (edited)

DiPX_bZU8AA8jfJ.jpg

 

I just can't get past this. I'm not trained in legal precedent and case law, but this looks like a straight-up case of 'aid and comfort to the enemy' to me. Anyone think it's not? Keep in mind the context - this was in response to a question about whether he believes our own intelligence agencies or said enemy.

Edited by Bat Guano
Link to comment
Share on other sites
HenryJames

HenryJames 66041

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, babysdaddy said:

How does this even happen?  One assumption I've always had when reading about gerrymandering is it is done specifically to help republicans.  Maybe this does help them out overall but I was surprised to see this district was represented by Dogett who is a D.

They put a large population of likely D voters into a single district instead of multiple districts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
jimmyjazz

jimmyjazz 45898

Posted
Posted
5 minutes ago, Longhorn_Fan68 said:

I never thought I'd say this, but I'm glad my grandparents aren't around to see this.

I've thought the exact same thing, but "parents".  And they were Republicans for most of their lives.  They would be losing their minds over this shit, especially my Dad.  He was as hard core "country first" as it gets.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
jimmyjazz

jimmyjazz 45898

Posted
Posted (edited)
7 minutes ago, Bat Guano said:

I just can't get past this. I'm not trained in legal precedent and case law, but this looks like a straight-up case of 'aid and comfort to the enemy' to me. Anyone think it's not? Keep in mind the context - this was in response to a question about whether he believes our own intelligence agencies or said enemy.

The legal answer to counter the charge of treason is likely "we're not at war with Russia".

But yes, it's essentially treasonous behavior, without all the necessary conditions.

 

 

 

 

Edited by jimmyjazz
I don't type good.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bat Guano

Bat Guano 359

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

The legal answer to counter the charge of treason is "we're not at war with Russia".

But yes, it's essentially treasonous behavior, without all the necessary condition.

Maybe we should be. Seems like there's a pretty good argument that Russia committed acts of war.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
TornACL

TornACL 7698

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, futureman said:

jesus.  y’all don’t even know what you’re angry about.  what a fucking monkey circus in here. 

It's just that the list of transgressions is now so long. Where do you start? Oh that's right, you start with the fact that the President undermines his own intelligence org because he wants to be BFFs with Vlad Putin.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share
Go to topic listing


Football ... Basketball ... Baseball ... Other Sports ... Futbol ... 🤫995🤫 ... Gambling ... Movies & TV ... Music ... Hobbies ... Lulz ... Food & Travel ... Daily Texan ... Business and Markets ... Cloak Room ... Help ... For Sale ... Board Discussion ... Subscribe!... Donate!... Advertise... COOKIE MONSTER!

×
×
  • Create New...