Jump to content

Donald Trump 2018

TheFlyingBoat

By TheFlyingBoat
in Cloak Room

 Share

Recommended Posts

  • 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

Mojo Hand

Mojo Hand 4580

Posted
Posted
47 minutes ago, GRHorn said:

Davis was used an anonymous source for a story for CNN. He then corroborated the story “anonymously” to multiple other outlets that were racing to get out the “bombshell”.   It was all bullshit. The other outlets have retracted the story.  CNN hasn’t.

https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/stevenperlberg/lanny-davis-cnn-trump-tower-story

What is your basis for contending that it was all bullshit? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
JimmyJames

JimmyJames 12271

Posted
Posted
51 minutes ago, GRHorn said:

Davis was used an anonymous source for a story for CNN. He then corroborated the story “anonymously” to multiple other outlets that were racing to get out the “bombshell”.   It was all bullshit. The other outlets have retracted the story.  CNN hasn’t.

https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/stevenperlberg/lanny-davis-cnn-trump-tower-story

Why are you so quick on the draw to defend a guy you supposedly don’t support?  Could it be that you are once again showing your ass and are full of shit? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
GRHorn

GRHorn 105

Posted
Posted
21 minutes ago, Mojo Hand said:

What is your basis for contending that it was all bullshit? 

Cohen’s testimony before the Senate Intelligence contradicted what Davis anonymously claimed. That’s according to Sens Warner and Blumenthal. So either Cohen perjured himself or Davis lied while being an anonymous source. Which do you think is more likely?

 

21 minutes ago, Lurch said:

 


Team.

 

Read above. 

 

19 minutes ago, JimmyJames said:

Why are you so quick on the draw to defend a guy you supposedly don’t support?  Could it be that you are once again showing your ass and are full of shit? 

For the 87th time, I support him on some things, others I don’t. When I think he’s full of it or horribly wrong, I don’t post about it. There’s nothing interesting about that. This forum has that covered. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mojo Hand

Mojo Hand 4580

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, GRHorn said:

Cohen’s testimony before the Senate Intelligence contradicted what Davis anonymously claimed. That’s according to Sens Warner and Blumenthal. So either Cohen perjured himself or Davis lied while being an anonymous source. Which do you think is more likely?

 

Read above. 

 

For the 87th time, I support him on some things, others I don’t. When I think he’s full of it or horribly wrong, I don’t post about it. There’s nothing interesting about that. This forum has that covered. 

Cohen perjurying himself is obviously more likely.  And CNN had more than one source. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
JimmyJames

JimmyJames 12271

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, GRHorn said:

Cohen’s testimony before the Senate Intelligence contradicted what Davis anonymously claimed. That’s according to Sens Warner and Blumenthal. So either Cohen perjured himself or Davis lied while being an anonymous source. Which do you think is more likely?

 

Read above. 

 

For the 87th time, I support him on some things, others I don’t. When I think he’s full of it or horribly wrong, I don’t post about it. There’s nothing interesting about that. This forum has that covered. 

Interesting tactic and admission. I guess I’ll just leave it at that. Just not interested in a negative argument tonight. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
DigglerontheHoof

DigglerontheHoof 21195

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Huckleberry said:

You're a fucking idiot. I'm not a Democrat or Republican and I never said you like Trump or have ever said anything positive about him. Untwist your panties you pussy.

On and about this: "I have never said she would be as bad as Trump. Find where I said that.  "

.Now answer the question you coward or go be a moron somewhere else.

Because she rode her husband’s coattails to the dem nomination and I think she’s a soulless, immoral fraud.

Also, I have two sisters and 5 nieces and believe we’re overdue for a female president.

i just want it to be someone who got their on there own volition.

So, suck it, bitch.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Gil Bang

Gil Bang 25949

Posted
Posted (edited)
5 minutes ago, DigglerontheHoof said:

Because she rode her husband’s coattails to the dem nomination and I think she’s a soulless, immoral fraud.

Also, I have two sisters and 5 nieces and believe we’re overdue for a female president.

i just want it to be someone who got their on there own volition.

So, suck it, bitch.

Elected U.S. Senator twice,  and served as Secretary of State.  All on Bill's coattails.   Amazing.  There's a bitch alright, and it's you dude. 

Edited by Gil Bang
  • Like 3
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Hugo Stiglitz

Hugo Stiglitz 23367

Posted
Posted

President Trump’s advisers and allies are increasingly worried that he has neither the staff nor the strategy to protect himself from a possible Democratic takeover of the House, which would empower the opposition party to shower the administration with subpoenas or even pursue impeachment charges.

Within Trump’s orbit, there is consensus that his current legal team is not equipped to effectively navigate an onslaught of congressional demands, and there has been broad discussion about bringing on new lawyers experienced in white-collar defense and political scandals.

The president and some of his advisers have discussed possibly adding veteran defense attorney Abbe Lowell, who currently represents Trump son-in-law and senior adviser Jared Kushner, to Trump’s personal legal team if an impeachment battle or other fights with Congress emerge after the midterm elections, according to people familiar with the discussions.

Trump advisers also are discussing recruiting experienced legal firepower to the Office of White House Counsel, which is facing departures and has dwindled in size at a critical juncture. The office has about 25 lawyers now, down from roughly 35 earlier in the presidency, according to a White House official with direct knowledge.

Trump announced Wednesday that Donald McGahn will depart as White House counsel this fall, once the Senate confirms Supreme Court nominee Brett M. Kavanaugh. Three of McGahn’s deputies — Greg Katsas, Uttam Dhillon and Makan Delrahim — have departed, and a fourth, Stefan Passantino, will have his last day Friday. That leaves John Eisenberg, who handles national security, as the lone deputy counsel.

Trump recently has consulted his personal attorneys about the likelihood of impeachment proceedings. And McGahn and other aides have invoked the prospect of impeachment to convince the president not to take actions or behave in ways that they believe would hurt him, officials said.

Still, Trump has not directed his lawyers or his political aides to prepare an action plan, leaving allies to fret that the president does not appreciate the magnitude of what could be in store next year.

This account of the president and his team grappling with a potential crisis is based on interviews this week with 26 White House officials, presidential advisers and lawyers and strategists close to the administration, most of whom spoke on the condition of anonymity to be candid.

Trump attorney Rudolph W. Giuliani said he and the president have discussed the possibility that special counsel Robert S. Mueller III issues a damning report to Congress.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/winter-is-coming-allies-fear-trump-isnt-prepared-for-gathering-legal-storm/2018/08/29/b07fc0a6-aba0-11e8-b1da-ff7faa680710_story.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nivek

Nivek 16924

Posted
Posted
Because she rode her husband’s coattails to the dem nomination and I think she’s a soulless, immoral fraud.
Also, I have two sisters and 5 nieces and believe we’re overdue for a female president.
i just want it to be someone who got their on there own volition.
So, suck it, bitch.

I tend to think she motivated Bill and was an integral part of his success as opposed to some demure housewife who turned off Days of Our Lives and used her name to land a job. But hey.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
SubliminalHorn

SubliminalHorn 6786

Posted
Posted
35 minutes ago, DigglerontheHoof said:

Because she rode her husband’s coattails to the dem nomination and I think she’s a soulless, immoral fraud.

Also, I have two sisters and 5 nieces and believe we’re overdue for a female president.

i just want it to be someone who got their on there own volition.

So, suck it, bitch.

You make no sense. How the hell did she ride her husband’s coattails? You do realize she had her own career, right? The citizens of NY elected her senator twice. It’s not like somehow Bill gave the office to her. It’s her fault she had a very famous last name?

You know, you not voting is a good thing. Keep not doing it for the country’s sake. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
F250

F250 28770

Posted
Posted

If you ignore Trump's tweets for a week and then read all through them at once, you get the feeling someone on a meth binge wrote those tweets. We are getting really close to Charlie Sheen "tiger blood" territory.

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
DigglerontheHoof

DigglerontheHoof 21195

Posted
Posted
48 minutes ago, Nivek said:


I tend to think she motivated Bill and was an integral part of his success as opposed to some demure housewife who turned off Days of Our Lives and used her name to land a job. But hey.

Fair enough.  I saw her as someone who used him to get where she wanted to go.  I just didn't like her from the very beginning...and I voted for Bill twice.

Enough Hillary, sorry I bought it back up. 

I will continue to vote though, Subliminal.  I think you'll like my idiotic votes in the near future, though.  In spite of me being stupid, I'm firmly opposed to Trump and his ilk. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
pyrohornIII

pyrohornIII 4814

Posted
Posted

This will be Trump's downfall, and they will have to coordinate it with all the R's  in the senate and house, in order to make them the heroes that brought him to heel.  There will be some who take a fall for collateral damage, and the money people want to have their replacements ready in the wings.

Fox turning on Trump will cause a lot of consternation among his base and the Tea Partiers.  It will be seen if Murdock and cronies do it to generate fear and violence to make news money off of, or will do it in a way to further advance their financial agenda.  Will Sinclair join in on the Trump feasting?  Gonna be fun to watch. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
F250

F250 28770

Posted
Posted
40 minutes ago, pyrohornIII said:

This will be Trump's downfall, and they will have to coordinate it with all the R's  in the senate and house, in order to make them the heroes that brought him to heel.  There will be some who take a fall for collateral damage, and the money people want to have their replacements ready in the wings.

Fox turning on Trump will cause a lot of consternation among his base and the Tea Partiers.  It will be seen if Murdock and cronies do it to generate fear and violence to make news money off of, or will do it in a way to further advance their financial agenda.  Will Sinclair join in on the Trump feasting?  Gonna be fun to watch. 

The cognitive dissonance will reach dangerous levels.

tumblr_oung3at6tA1r1ult6o1_400.gif

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
jimmyjazz

jimmyjazz 45909

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, pyrohornIII said:

This will be Trump's downfall, and they will have to coordinate it with all the R's  in the senate and house, in order to make them the heroes that brought him to heel.  There will be some who take a fall for collateral damage, and the money people want to have their replacements ready in the wings.

Fox turning on Trump will cause a lot of consternation among his base and the Tea Partiers.  It will be seen if Murdock and cronies do it to generate fear and violence to make news money off of, or will do it in a way to further advance their financial agenda.  Will Sinclair join in on the Trump feasting?  Gonna be fun to watch. 

LOLwut?  The idea that there is about to be some coordinated hero revolt is fucking idiotic.  Come on.  You're listening to Tom Arnold, which is roughly as smart as listening to Roseanne Barr.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
pyrohornIII

pyrohornIII 4814

Posted
Posted
7 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

LOLwut?  The idea that there is about to be some coordinated hero revolt is fucking idiotic.  Come on.  You're listening to Tom Arnold, which is roughly as smart as listening to Roseanne Barr.

Well maybe...but the thing is that Murdock is part of the uber rich.  He doesn't run Fox or any of his companies for the good of the country over the good of his profit line.   He is going to do things that make him money.   They have spent too much on getting these lackey lawmakers in place to let them all go down with Trump.   But the thing is they are all covering for the orange piece of shit.   So if or when Fox does turn on him, then it will leave a lot of Rs looking stupid for not having done the right thing before that.  

I do think that Murdock turning on Trump is the only way to really bring this to an end.   Otherwise he will always be held up as a martyr by a large group of Americans.  Even if Mueller gets his convictions, even if Trump is impeached and sent to jail, until all of the country finds him guilty in the court of public opinion, there will be discord.  Murdock can change that by turning on Trump.  

Now how they go about throwing out Trump without ousting a lot of his enablers currently holding office, I don't know.   I still think there will be some who go down with him for either being implicated or covering up/obstructing.

 

You are right, Tom Arnold is a blowhard...it really wasn't him i was pinning this on, but just the idea that Murdock and Fox could do serious damage.  Then taking that a step further to maybe figure out how they might think they could take Trump down and retain their sweet spot in manipulating our government.   This is the first talk I have heard of it.    Might be why he keeps Shep and Cavuto around?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Hugo Stiglitz

Hugo Stiglitz 23367

Posted
Posted
15 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

LOLwut?  The idea that there is about to be some coordinated hero revolt is fucking idiotic.  Come on.  You're listening to Tom Arnold, which is roughly as smart as listening to Roseanne Barr.

At some point, Fox News will have to turn on Trump, it’s inevitable.  It’s not going to be soon but it will happen.  Fox News isn’t going down with the Trumptanic.  They’re going to need to rebuild their brand along with the GOP.  If anyone on the right is in it for the long haul, it’s Fox News.

Of course Hannity will probably have to go the way of Glenn Beck and I’m not sure what they will do with Tucker but the Network will move on, it always does. 

Trump is cash cow for them and they will also profit off of his demise when the time is right. The viewers will also go along with it because they always have.

The mob is fickle. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
jimmyjazz

jimmyjazz 45909

Posted
Posted

It will be far more profitable for FOX to fan the flames of revolt if Trump is ever impeached than it will be to turn on him.  Such a turning will only be a move to the next guy up.  The network isn't going to suddenly move away from their base, nor are they even going to try to reeducate their base.  They will go along to whatever degree necessary to maintain viewership.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Gil Bang

Gil Bang 25949

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

It will be far more profitable for FOX to fan the flames of revolt if Trump is ever impeached than it will be to turn on him.  Such a turning will only be a move to the next guy up.  The network isn't going to suddenly move away from their base, nor are they even going to try to reeducate their base.  They will go along to whatever degree necessary to maintain viewership.

yep.  They'd have to dump all their "talent" to do the switcheroo.  Hannity and Ingraham aren't gonna be believable as anti-trumpers. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Hugo Stiglitz

Hugo Stiglitz 23367

Posted
Posted
23 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

 

It will be far more profitable for FOX to fan the flames of revolt if Trump is ever impeached than it will be to turn on him.  Such a turning will only be a move to the next guy up.  The network isn't going to suddenly move away from their base, nor are they even going to try to reeducate their base.  They will go along to whatever degree necessary to maintain viewership.

 

Pence is the perfect Fox News President.  They will rally around him as they turn on Dotard.  The Fox News viewership isn’t going anywhere if they throw Trump under the bus.  What are they going to do? Watch CNN? The mob doesn’t really care who goes down as long as someone is going down.  

And you can bet your ass Pence is ready to work the Fox News machine.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
DigDug

DigDug 1669

Posted
Posted
5 hours ago, GRHorn said:

Cohen’s testimony before the Senate Intelligence contradicted what Davis anonymously claimed. That’s according to Sens Warner and Blumenthal. So either Cohen perjured himself or Davis lied while being an anonymous source. Which do you think is more likely?

 

Read above. 

 

For the 87th time, I support him on some things, others I don’t. When I think he’s full of it or horribly wrong, I don’t post about it. There’s nothing interesting about that. This forum has that covered. 

Which is more likely you ask.  Ok, remind me what stance you mean, about the guy who couldn't tell the the truth if a gun was to head openly wants to fuck his own daughter does not have common sense enough to wear a condom when screwing a whore screams he only works with the best then screams those same people are crazy folds like a cheap lawn chair when in front of the Russian president becomes a school girl in front of the Korean president lies constantly about new steel mill openings bullshits constantly about a Mexico paid wall will not show his taxes comes up with this new shit about sources when his entire LIFE is anonymous sources.  

You could be right though

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Fudge Nuggets

Fudge Nuggets 19190

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, DigDug said:

Which is more likely you ask.  Ok, remind me what stance you mean, about the guy who couldn't tell the the truth if a gun was to head openly wants to fuck his own daughter does not have common sense enough to wear a condom when screwing a whore screams he only works with the best then screams those same people are crazy folds like a cheap lawn chair when in front of the Russian president becomes a school girl in front of the Korean president lies constantly about new steel mill openings bullshits constantly about a Mexico paid wall will not show his taxes comes up with this new shit about sources when his entire LIFE is anonymous sources.  

You could be right though

Appears your comma key broke right after the start of the second sentence.

Good God this was a beating to read.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
SpiralOut

SpiralOut 1813

Posted
Posted
3 hours ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

At some point, Fox News will have to turn on Trump, it’s inevitable.  It’s not going to be soon but it will happen.  Fox News isn’t going down with the Trumptanic.  They’re going to need to rebuild their brand along with the GOP.  If anyone on the right is in it for the long haul, it’s Fox News.

Of course Hannity will probably have to go the way of Glenn Beck and I’m not sure what they will do with Tucker but the Network will move on, it always does. 

Trump is cash cow for them and they will also profit off of his demise when the time is right. The viewers will also go along with it because they always have.

The mob is fickle. 

So in thread after thread you've been telling us that the Trump voters are a bunch of mindless, drooling, racist, sexist, assholes who don't give a flying fuck about the country and will defend Trump to the death.  They'd all become honorary Russians if they could.  Right?

Now you want us to believe that when their propaganda machine "turns" on Trump (which it will never fucking do) they'll go right along with it?  They'll all of a sudden throw Trump to the curb and back the (in their minds) RINO fucks who Trump lambasted through his entire campaign run while they cheered him on?  All because FOX news tells them to? 

And as others have mentioned, ain't nobody at FOX right now except maybe Neil Cavuto is going to be able to credibly shit on Trump when the time comes.  You'd have to clean house and we all know how well the old, racist, sexist, mouth breathers respond to change and new faces when they're telling them shit they don't want to hear.

And of course this all assumes Trump is in bad enough shape that Murdock would think he absolutely fucking had to turn his network's coat.  Mueller is taking his sweet time and Teflon Don is still doing his bull in a china shop routine.  The "Blue Wave" in November is more wishful thinking.  Dems will pick up seats, but it won't be enough.  And if the Republicans aren't all tossed out of Congress, Trump ain't getting impeached.  Then we're back into campaign season where guys like Murdock cream their pants over the ratings Trump's rallies, quips about his opponents, etc. bring in.  Trump is going to get billions more free air time the next campaign cycle.  And the Republicans have no one that can legitimately run against him at this point for Murdock to back.  Low-energy Jeb?  Lyin' Ted Cruz?  Tiny Marco?  And Coordinator is out of his mind if he actually thinks Murdock and FOX News are backing a Democrat.  They're going to ride Trump until he's either out of office or dead. 

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TornACL

TornACL 7698

Posted
Posted
6 hours ago, pyrohornIII said:

Well maybe...but the thing is that Murdock is part of the uber rich.  He doesn't run Fox or any of his companies for the good of the country over the good of his profit line.   He is going to do things that make him money.   They have spent too much on getting these lackey lawmakers in place to let them all go down with Trump.   But the thing is they are all covering for the orange piece of shit.   So if or when Fox does turn on him, then it will leave a lot of Rs looking stupid for not having done the right thing before that.  

I do think that Murdock turning on Trump is the only way to really bring this to an end.   Otherwise he will always be held up as a martyr by a large group of Americans.  Even if Mueller gets his convictions, even if Trump is impeached and sent to jail, until all of the country finds him guilty in the court of public opinion, there will be discord.  Murdock can change that by turning on Trump.  

Now how they go about throwing out Trump without ousting a lot of his enablers currently holding office, I don't know.   I still think there will be some who go down with him for either being implicated or covering up/obstructing.

 

You are right, Tom Arnold is a blowhard...it really wasn't him i was pinning this on, but just the idea that Murdock and Fox could do serious damage.  Then taking that a step further to maybe figure out how they might think they could take Trump down and retain their sweet spot in manipulating our government.   This is the first talk I have heard of it.    Might be why he keeps Shep and Cavuto around?

We live in a world where it is cable television, and not the law, which administers justice? 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
atomheartbevo

atomheartbevo 89656

Posted
Posted
6 hours ago, Gil Bang said:

yep.  They'd have to dump all their "talent" to do the switcheroo.  Hannity and Ingraham aren't gonna be believable as anti-trumpers. 

They will change their tune if told.  They all saw how quickly Bill O’Reilly dropped off the radar when he was fired.  

I don’t buy the Tom Arnold story, but I don’t think Cavuto, Shep, etc. were allowed to go off on Trump without approval. 

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...