Jump to content

Donald Trump 2018

TheFlyingBoat

By TheFlyingBoat
in Cloak Room

 Share

Recommended Posts

RomaVicta

RomaVicta 29902

Posted
Posted
44 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

He’s gonna pardon errbody isn’t he?

 

32 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

If he does, the Republican Party will pay dearly.

So I hope he does.

Do not deprive me of the Ivanka in Prison fantasy/movie. It's the only upside of the death of the republic.

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

retread

retread 2951

Posted
Posted

^

Quote

Statement of A.G. Sulzberger, Publisher, The New York Times, in Response to President Trump’s Tweet About Their Meeting
July 29, 2018
Earlier this month, A.G. received a request from the White House to meet with President Trump. This was not unusual; there has been a long tradition of New York Times publishers holding such meetings with presidents and other public figures who have concerns about coverage.

On July 20th, A.G. went to the White House, accompanied by James Bennet, who oversees the editorial page of The Times. Mr. Trump’s aides requested that the meeting be off the record, which has also been the practice for such meetings in the past.

But with Mr. Trump’s tweet this morning, he has put the meeting on the record, so A.G. has decided to respond to the president’s characterization of their conversation, based on detailed notes A.G. and James took.

Statement of A.G. Sulzberger, Publisher, The New York Times:

My main purpose for accepting the meeting was to raise concerns about the president’s deeply troubling anti-press rhetoric.

I told the president directly that I thought that his language was not just divisive but increasingly dangerous.

I told him that although the phrase “fake news” is untrue and harmful, I am far more concerned about his labeling journalists “the enemy of the people.” I warned that this inflammatory language is contributing to a rise in threats against journalists and will lead to violence.

I repeatedly stressed that this is particularly true abroad, where the president’s rhetoric is being used by some regimes to justify sweeping crackdowns on journalists. I warned that it was putting lives at risk, that it was undermining the democratic ideals of our nation, and that it was eroding one of our country’s greatest exports: a commitment to free speech and a free press.

Throughout the conversation I emphasized that if President Trump, like previous presidents, was upset with coverage of his administration he was of course free to tell the world. I made clear repeatedly that I was not asking for him to soften his attacks on The Times if he felt our coverage was unfair. Instead, I implored him to reconsider his broader attacks on journalism, which I believe are dangerous and harmful to our country. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
JimmyJames

JimmyJames 12271

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Newy25 said:

Thou dost protest too much. If he had nothing to hide he probably should stop talking about the investigation. 

That’s because he obviously has something to hide.

On another note has anybody located that Jeb bush fan yet?  Because that’s someone I gotta meet. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
RayDog

RayDog 682

Posted
Posted

Here is Stedman's story he was forced to delete. Credit to the Reddit poster who saved It.

"Second Playboy model alleges an affair with Trump, received payment from AMI
A former Playboy model who claims she had an affair with Donald Trump before he ran for President received a payment from National Enquirer’s parent company, AMI, in yet another example of a “catch-and-kill” story involving President Trump.
This is the second Playboy model who has come forward with an allegation of an affair with Trump. Karen McDougal claims she had a relationship with Trump in 2006 and 2007. AMI paid Ms. McDougal $150,000 for the exclusive rights for her story, but never published it.
A source with an intimate understanding of the payment says that the unnamed model received $185,000 for the rights to her story from an AMI lawyer. The original contract was for $250k, the source said, but AMI took approximately 26% of that number because they negotiated the deal. The payment, which has not previously been reported, was made in two payments in 2014 over a period of 6 months, as Trump was deliberating a run for office.
The model declined all requests for comment, except to say that she did not want her name attached to this story.
Audio of Trump’s former lawyer Michael Cohen discussing this payment was among the tapes seized by federal investigators who raided Cohen’s office, home, and hotel in April. It wasn’t immediately known with whom Cohen was discussing the payment.
The AMI lawyer who made the payment to the model in 2014 was not identified. A source told me, “There are many ‘fixers’. They are all related to one another, but work in separate states.”
The payment has garnered interest not only from New York investigators but also from Special Counsel Robert Mueller. Among the possible avenues that Mueller will explore is whether Trump had decided to run for President in 2014 when this payment was made. The new expanded timeline is evidence that Trump had decided to run for office in 2014, months after he visited Moscow for the Miss Universe pageant.
According to a source familiar with the contact between Mueller’s office and the former Playboy model, there is an expectation that the model will soon be brought in by the Special Counsel for an interview.
The identity of the model is expected to be announced in the coming days.
A spokesman for the Special Counsel’s office did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
Note: This is the first article I have written that relies entirely on unnamed sources. I wouldn’t have done this if it wasn’t completely necessary. I firmly stand by the accuracy of the story.
This article will be updated as more information is learned."

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites
bad_teammate

bad_teammate 13191

Posted
Posted

Remember this moment? Very surreal and obviously shitty and but maybe there was a little hope that the gravity of the office would keep his worst instincts reined in... maybe the sheer size of the machine would overwhelm him and he'd get locked up in minutae or would feel so insecure he would just bring in experts and defer to them constantly and tout their ideas as his own.

ugh

HelplessDistinctBee.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mo Horn

Mo Horn 8831

Posted
Posted

Pulled up my Twitter newsfeed and the first thing i saw was a story about Ginsberg. Almost had a coronary thinking something happened to her. It was just about how she hopes to stay on 5 more years. Too early in the morning for that fright. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
SuingToGetAMessageBoard?

SuingToGetAMessageBoard? 3861

Posted
Posted (edited)
50 minutes ago, Mo Horn said:

Pulled up my Twitter newsfeed and the first thing i saw was a story about Ginsberg. Almost had a coronary thinking something happened to her. It was just about how she hopes to stay on 5 more years. Too early in the morning for that fright. 

I decided that was a politically calculated comment.  She doesn’t want Rs thinking about confirmation in the upcoming election. They have no GOTV reasons right now and she wants it to stay that way.  

Edited by SuingToGetAMessageBoard?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Js1

Js1 85276

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, SuingToGetAMessageBoard? said:

I decided that was a politically calculated comment.  She doesn’t want Rs thinking about confirmation in the upcoming election. They have no GOTV reasons right now and she wants it to stay that way.  

Also, I'd take the odds that RBG outlives Trump.  His pig heart is eventually going to explode.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Loco

Loco 3752

Posted
Posted
10 hours ago, Aqua Buddha said:

He used to take the weekends off on Twitter because he was golfing but lately he's spent the entire weekends tweeting about Mueller, which should say something.

He wants to pee on Mueller?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
CooterBrown

CooterBrown 18003

Posted
Posted
Reagan flat out warning us about Trump:

 

 Our peaceful trading partners are not our enemies; they are our allies. We should beware of the demagogs who are ready to declare a trade war against our friends—weakening our economy, our national security, and the entire free world—all while cynically waving the American flag. The expansion of the international economy is not a foreign invasion; it is an American triumph, one we worked hard to achieve, and something central to our vision of a peaceful and prosperous world of freedom.

After the Second World War, America led the way to dismantle trade barriers and create a world trading system that set the stage for decades of unparalleled economic growth. And in one week, when important multilateral trade talks are held in Montreal, we will be in the forefront of efforts to improve this system. We want to open more markets for our products, to see to it that all nations play by the rules, and to seek improvement in such areas as dispute resolution and agriculture. We also want to bring the benefits of free trade to new areas, including services, investment, and the protection of intellectual property. Our negotiators will be working hard for all of us.

Yes, back in 1776, our Founding Fathers believed that free trade was worth fighting for. And we can celebrate their victory because today trade is at the core of the alliance that secure the peace and guarantee our freedom; it is the source of our prosperity and the path to an even brighter future for America.

 


 
 


RINO.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
atomheartbevo

atomheartbevo 89628

Posted
Posted (edited)
3 hours ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

DjWFImmWwAAeu6Q?format=jpg&name=900x900

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/07/10/birthday-of-the-day-morgan-ortagus-706140

Quote

BIRTHDAY OF THE DAY: Morgan Ortagus, co-founder of GO (Global Opportunity) Advisors, national co-chair of Maverick PAC and a Navy reserve officer

.....

How is the Trump presidency going? “He’s doing exactly what the people who elected him wanted him to do— which is to burn down the place. People who voted for him were sick of the status quo and wanted real change. I think he scares people in the Beltway, but when I visit real America, people are still happy that he isn’t scared to break the glass.”

Quote

On Saturday, May 11, 2013, Morgan Ortagus married her husband Jonathan Ross Weinberger. They were married by Supreme Court Justice, Ruth Bader Ginsburg in her chambers at the Supreme Court in Washington, D.C.

 

Edited by atomheartbevo
Link to comment
Share on other sites
lemonlime

lemonlime 5503

Posted
Posted
8 minutes ago, Fozzz said:

Unlike our previous presidents, hopefully Trump has enough sense to finally extricate us from that quagmire for good.

 

 

Mr. Art of the Deal is going to enter direct talks with the Taliban?  Or maybe he'll send Jared.   And then he'll declare victory no matter what.  This is today's bright, shiny object.  There's no reason to think Trump is going to be a better negotiator with the Taliban than he was with Kim Jong Un or Putin.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tuco

Tuco 5076

Posted
Posted
5 minutes ago, Js1 said:

So we now negotiate with actual terrorists who killed 2,996 people on 9/11?

Tahoe must have choked on his donut. That's much worse than bowing and apologizing.

Not really.  The Taliban is used as a catch-all term to describe anti-West factions in Afghanistan.  Some of them include factions which sided with the US or the Northern Alliance 10-17 years ago.  It's not like there is one, shadowy figure who could negotiate for all those factions.  It's a country that hasn't been truly united in decades - maybe the 70s?  Either, you need an overwhelming force holding it together or you need to accept that there will be bad people who control large segments of it.  I vote for the latter.  Pick the groups you think are less bad, fund them, and accept they aren't going to control the entire country.  And get the fuck out. 

 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites
atomheartbevo

atomheartbevo 89628

Posted
Posted
12 minutes ago, lemonlime said:

Mr. Art of the Deal is going to enter direct talks with the Taliban?  Or maybe he'll send Jared.   And then he'll declare victory no matter what.  This is today's bright, shiny object.  There's no reason to think Trump is going to be a better negotiator with the Taliban than he was with Kim Jong Un or Putin.

He will negotiate a deal whereby the ISIS/caliphate types in Syria/Iraq/North Africa end up in Afghanistan and completely take over, and then move on Pakistan.  What could go wrong then?  Pakistan doesn’t have any weapons that could cause us problems, right?

He will just blame Obama anyways.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Js1

Js1 85276

Posted
Posted
5 minutes ago, Tuco said:

Not really.  The Taliban is used as a catch-all term to describe anti-West factions in Afghanistan.  Some of them include factions which sided with the US or the Northern Alliance 10-17 years ago.  It's not like there is one, shadowy figure who could negotiate for all those factions.  It's a country that hasn't been truly united in decades - maybe the 70s?  Either, you need an overwhelming force holding it together or you need to accept that there will be bad people who control large segments of it.  I vote for the latter.  Pick the groups you think are less bad, fund them, and accept they aren't going to control the entire country.  And get the fuck out. 

 

I'd like to hear Donald Trump explain that to America.

Because the real morons of this country equate Taliban = Afghanistan = Osama bin Laden = 9/11

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Brisketexan

Brisketexan 105066

Posted
Posted
17 minutes ago, seven said:

I don't mind the idea, but in practice it's still trump likely totally fucking it up. 

Well, yeah....probably.  But I've had no problem with us negotiating with the Taliban/other bad guys there in the past, and don't now.  Some sort of negotiated peace is the only way to end the quagmire.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Hugo Stiglitz

Hugo Stiglitz 23367

Posted
Posted
5 minutes ago, Tuco said:

Not really.  The Taliban is used as a catch-all term to describe anti-West factions in Afghanistan.  Some of them include factions which sided with the US or the Northern Alliance 10-17 years ago.  It's not like there is one, shadowy figure who could negotiate for all those factions.  It's a country that hasn't been truly united in decades - maybe the 70s?  Either, you need an overwhelming force holding it together or you need to accept that there will be bad people who control large segments of it.  I vote for the latter.  Pick the groups you think are less bad, fund them, and accept they aren't going to control the entire country.  And get the fuck out. 

 

There’s a HUGE Pakistan dynamic to the Taliban too. 

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...