Donald Trump 2019

[Fudge Nuggets 19,224]

3 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

At least two lawsuits have been filed already.

Congress is off this week. 

Well as long as defending the idea of checks and balances doesn’t interfere with vacation time, I guess we’re good.  Fuck all of them.

[Horn Under a Bad Sign 20,490]

U.S. Government asked Japanese leader to nominate Trump for the Nobel Prize. Is everything about these assholes fake?

https://thehill.com/policy/international/430403-us-asked-japanese-leader-to-nominate-trump-for-nobel-prize-report

[Chooky 13,319]

Swam4Texas once nominated me for the Nobel Prize, but the very next day he took a shit in the middle of my lawn, pointed at it and screamed "that's you!" and then held a 50 minute debate with the mailbox.  But my point is that I was nominated.  I'll never get it.  They'll give it to Obama, though.

[Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand 13,587]

*And the Nobel Peace Prize goes to.... HILLARY CLINTON!!!"

[Chooky 13,319]

I hope the Senate questions Rod Rosenstein and the hearings are televised.  He's whip-smart, combative, poised and confident.  If they press him on the timeline of wanting to "record the president" he'll smoothly segue everything toward the intentional negligence of the HIC.  He's a walking straight razor and he'll gut them like a fish.

[GRHorn 105]

2 hours ago, Goredho said:

The next two years may prove to be the most important in our nation's history.   Certainly they are the most important of my lifetime to date.  The stakes could not be higher.

 

Hoo boy. This is some nice hyperbole. POTUS is rubbing off on you. Or are you serious?

Half the posts on here for the last 2 years are about Trump being “unglued” or “unhinged”.  Projection?

[Brian Fantana 6,690]

2 minutes ago, GRHorn said:

Hoo boy. This is some nice hyperbole. POTUS is rubbing off on you. Or are you serious?

Half the posts on here for the last 2 years are about Trump being “unglued” or “unhinged”.  Projection?

Have anything to add other than your usual spiel about Trump detractors being insane?

[David Dennison 18,946]

4 minutes ago, GRHorn said:

Hoo boy. This is some nice hyperbole. POTUS is rubbing off on you. Or are you serious?

Half the posts on here for the last 2 years are about Trump being “unglued” or “unhinged”.  Projection?

At least he's not wearing a tan suit.

[Asithappens 974]

49 minutes ago, Chooky said:

Swam4Texas once nominated me for the Nobel Prize, but the very next day he took a shit in the middle of my lawn, pointed at it and screamed "that's you!" and then held a 50 minute debate with the mailbox.  

So, one of swam's more lucid days.

[GRHorn 105]

2 minutes ago, Brian Fantana said:

Have anything to add other than your usual spiel about Trump detractors being insane?

Most Trump detractors are not insane. There just seems to be a higher concentration of the insane here on a political message board.  Go figure.

“The stakes could not be higher.”  LMFAO

[DDD Dad 14,351]

1 hour ago, David Dennison said:

At least two lawsuits have been filed already.

Congress is off this week. 

Courts are closed today.

[GRHorn 105]

4 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

At least he's not wearing a tan suit.

The day he wears a tan suit, I will join in the Trump is unhinged posts. 

[David Dennison 18,946]

Just now, GRHorn said:

Most Trump detractors are not insane. There just seems to be a higher concentration of the insane here on a political message board.  Go figure.

“The stakes could not be higher.”  LMFAO

Because the right never engages in political hyperbole when Democrats are in control. 

"They're gonna take our guns and our money and move us into FEMA camps!"

[David Dennison 18,946]

1 minute ago, DDD Dad said:

Courts are closed today.

Yeah. They were filed Friday, from what I read.

[Horn Under a Bad Sign 20,490]

Just now, David Dennison said:

Because the right never engages in political hyperbole when Democrats are in control. 

"They're gonna take our guns and our money and move us into FEMA camps!"

 

No Gestapo in Bastropo!

[GRHorn 105]

Just now, David Dennison said:

Because the right never engages in political hyperbole when Democrats are in control. 

"They're gonna take our guns and our money and move us into FEMA camps!"

I agree. That’s why I asked if he was serious. 

[David Dennison 18,946]

1 minute ago, GRHorn said:

The day he wears a tan suit, I will join in the Trump is unhinged posts. 

He has one ill-fitting suit and two ties. 

Gross.

[deech 2,291]

3 minutes ago, GRHorn said:

Most Trump detractors are not insane. There just seems to be a higher concentration of the insane here on a political message board.  Go figure.

“The stakes could not be higher.”  LMFAO

I don't seem to recall another sitting President calling a DOJ investigation into his Presidency a coup or declaring a national emergency so he can circumvent the legislature on something that he has had two years to address with a Republican Congress and failed.  

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,367]

[Biff Tannen 45,736]

12 minutes ago, GRHorn said:

Most Trump detractors are not insane. There just seems to be a higher concentration of the insane here on a political message board.  Go figure.

“The stakes could not be higher.”  LMFAO

So I'm going to assume you think the entire Russia situation is a paranoid conspiracy theory by the left, correct?  

My question then is why is it that in a world where there are legit insane conspiracy theories (see Q Anon) that this investigation gets tossed in that same bin?  The facts and circumstances that form basis of this investigation are glaringly obvious.  Using only what the public knows, the facts completely line up with the idea that the president and/or his campaign were involved in a conspiracy of some kind with the Russian government.  

[jimmyjazz 46,130]

16 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

Because the right never engages in political hyperbole when Democrats are in control. 

"They're gonna take our guns and our money and move us into FEMA camps!"

Hell, my dream is to take their guns and their money, buy a little ammo with said money, and then abort their babies with their guns and my new ammo, while wearing a sombrero.

Is that wrong?

[RomaVicta 30,017]

27 minutes ago, GRHorn said:

Most Trump detractors are not insane. There just seems to be a higher concentration of the insane here on a political message board.  Go figure.

“The stakes could not be higher.”  LMFAO

Can there be a clearer message of defeat than claiming the world that is beating you is insane?

[Mo Horn 8,854]

In celebration of President's Day I wanted to post something that made me feel a little better about our current situation. Hopefully this is still possible. 

[RPM 26,353]

1 hour ago, David Dennison said:

Because the right never engages in political hyperbole when Democrats are in control. 

"They're gonna take our guns and our money and move us into FEMA camps!"

Jade Helm says hi.

[GRHorn 105]

42 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

So I'm going to assume you think the entire Russia situation is a paranoid conspiracy theory by the left, correct?  

My question then is why is it that in a world where there are legit insane conspiracy theories (see Q Anon) that this investigation gets tossed in that same bin?  The facts and circumstances that form basis of this investigation are glaringly obvious.  Using only what the public knows, the facts completely line up with the idea that the president and/or his campaign were involved in a conspiracy of some kind with the Russian government.  

 

I’m happy to let the investigation run its course, although over two years since the Inauguration does seem like it should be enough. Evidently the Senate Intelligence Committee is gonna report back that there’s no direct evidence of collusion, so there’s that.

I actually agree with Hugo and think we should get a pretty thorough report from Mueller. We probably disagree on how significant it will be. Y’all will all yell it’s the end of the world. Republicans will say see what a waste of time. Rinse, repeat. 

None of this is Republic threatening stuff, sorry. 

[David Dennison 18,946]

1 minute ago, GRHorn said:

I’m happy to let the investigation run its course, although over two years since the Inauguration does seem like it should be enough. Evidently the Senate Intelligence Committee is gonna report back that there’s no direct evidence of collusion, so there’s that.

I actually agree with Hugo and think we should get a pretty thorough report from Mueller. We probably disagree on how significant it will be. Y’all will all yell it’s the end of the world. Republicans will say see what a waste of time. Rinse, repeat. 

None of this is Republic threatening stuff, sorry. 

Not according to the vice-chairman of the committee.

Edited February 18, 2019 by David Dennison

[GRHorn 105]

8 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

Not according to the vice-chairman of the committee.

Sen. Mark Warner, D.-Va., ranking member of the committee, told reporters in the Capitol Tuesday that he disagrees with the way Burr characterized the evidence about collusion, but he declined to offer his own assessment.

"I'm not going to get into any conclusions I have," he said, before adding that "there's never been a campaign in American history ... that people affiliated with the campaign had as many ties with Russia as the Trump campaign did."

Democratic Senate investigators who spoke to NBC News on condition of anonymity did not dispute Burr's characterizations, but said they lacked context.

"We were never going to find a contract signed in blood saying, 'Hey Vlad, we're going to collude,'" one Democratic aide said.

[David Dennison 18,946]

Just now, GRHorn said:

Sen. Mark Warner, D.-Va., ranking member of the committee, told reporters in the Capitol Tuesday that he disagrees with the way Burr characterized the evidence about collusion, but he declined to offer his own assessment.

"I'm not going to get into any conclusions I have," he said, before adding that "there's never been a campaign in American history ... that people affiliated with the campaign had as many ties with Russia as the Trump campaign did."

Democratic Senate investigators who spoke to NBC News on condition of anonymity did not dispute Burr's characterizations, but said they lacked context.

"We were never going to find a contract signed in blood saying, 'Hey Vlad, we're going to collude,'" one Democratic aide said.

Oh, you were using direct evidence in the legal sense. In that case you should know that there is a whole boatload of circumstantial evidence of collusion.

[jimmyjazz 46,130]

11 minutes ago, GRHorn said:

I’m happy to let the investigation run its course, although over two years since the Inauguration does seem like it should be enough. 

Why?  Please show your work, and use historical precedent.

 

Quote

Evidently the Senate Intelligence Committee is gonna report back that there’s no direct evidence of collusion, so there’s that.

You know this to be true?  They haven't even interviewed everyone yet.  I mean, I get it, the Senate is controlled by traitors to the Republic, so that committee is highly predisposed to say "hey we didn't find anything" but at least let the process play out before pronouncing the results.

 

Quote

None of this is Republic threatening stuff, sorry. 

Again . . . you have no idea what will be included.  Sorry.

[Francisco 2.0 32,428]

9 minutes ago, GRHorn said:

 

I’m happy to let the investigation run its course, although over two years since the Inauguration does seem like it should be enough. Evidently the Senate Intelligence Committee is gonna report back that there’s no direct evidence of collusion, so there’s that.

 

But of course it does.

 

 

 

 

 

[atomheartbevo 89,792]

4 hours ago, Goredho said:

All just my stupid fucking opinion, but it seems like the conservative street is getting primed for the President to take action.  Just like they were primed before the declaration of a national emergency.  I am guessing it will be a purge within the justice department and/or an attempt to short circuit Mueller's investigation.  McCabe's "coup" is the justification, and the groundwork was laid with the NYT oped last year about the "steady state resistance" opposing Trump within the government.  A soft purge within the GOP also seems likely.

If Trump had the balls to truly purge Mueller and the DOJ, he would have done it long before Mueller started sending people to jail.   He needed to fire Mueller and Co. back in 2017.   All of his tweets and comments are those of a cornered weasel who has no escape plan  and who can’t think ahead, outside of trying to discredit Mueller.

As for the GOP, who could he purge?  The GOP leadership is firmly on the Trump Train.  

He can’t purge Republicans in Congress, because primarying them runs the risk of the Dems taking even more seats.  

[Brian Fantana 6,690]

Good lord. First he knows better than real, actual doctors, now he knows better than federal investigators. What can't this man do?

[SmokeyTheBear 5,562]

Sure, 2 years should be plenty if you ran across a bunch of dead-ends where no one was colluding. But when you have so many bad actors trying to work deals for each other, it takes time to pull those threads and outline the evidence in a way that you can prosecute. Especially when you have other governments involved. 

[Chad Fuck 17,773]

1 minute ago, Brian Fantana said:

Good lord. First he knows better than real, actual doctors, now he knows better than federal investigators. What can't this man do?

Logic.

[Fozzz 152]

Someone was nice enough to compile a list of things Trump's admin has done so far that are against Russia's interests.  However, knowing the wily Putin, this is simply meant to provide plausible deniability against the charge of Trump being a Russian asset.

Quote

Trump deploys TANKS to Estonia as NATO builds up HUGE army on Russian border - Express, Feb 7 2017

Trump launches attack on Syria with 59 Tomahawk missiles - CNBC, Apr 6 2017

U.S. Rejects Exxon Mobil Bid for Waiver on Russia Sanctions - NYT, Apr 21 2017

Trump to promote U.S. natgas exports in Russia's backyard - Reuters, Jul 3 2017

Trump Urges East Europe to Loosen Russia's Grip With U.S. Gas - Bloomberg, Jul 6 2017

Trump signs bill approving new sanctions against Russia - CNN, Aug 3, 2017

Justice Dept Asks Russia's RT to Register as Foreign Agent - Newsmax, Sep 13 2017

US 'to restrict Russian military flights over America' - Independent, Sep 26 2017

Trump signs into law U.S. government ban on Kaspersky Lab software - Reuters, Dec 12 2017

Trump gives green light to selling lethal arms to Ukraine - The Hill, Dec 20 2017

U.S. Punishes Chechen Leader in New Sanctions Against Russians - NYT, Dec 20 2017

Sputnik Partner 'Required To Register' Under U.S. Foreign-Agent Law - RFERL, Jan 10 2018

Trump says Russia is helping North Korea avoid sanctions - CBSNews, Jan 17 2018

Trump's 'energy dominance' strategy is undercutting Russia's influence and business in Europe - Reuters, Feb 9 2018

Trump looks to deter Russia, China with $686B ask for Pentagon - The Hill, Feb 12 2018

American General In Syria Confirms US Forces Killed Hundreds Of Russians In Massive Battle - The Drive, Mar 16 2018

Trump orders expulsion of 60 Russian diplomats, closure of Seattle consulate - CBS, Mar 26 2018

Trump vows periodical dispatch of US troops to Baltic states, step up air defense - Lithuania Tribune, Apr 3 2018

Trump opposes Nord Stream II, questions Germany - AA, Apr 4 2018

Trump just hit Russian oligarchs with the most aggressive sanctions yet - Vice, Apr 6 2018

Trump orders missile strike on Syria military targets - CBSNews, Apr 9 2018

Aluminum Stocks Jump As Trump Sanctions Target Putin Pal - Investors, Apr 9 2018

Russia ‘deeply disappointed’ at Trump’s withdrawal from Iran deal - Times of Israel, May 9 2018

Trump to NATO allies: Raise military spending to 4 percent of GDP - AlJazeerah, Jul 12 2018

Trump says U.S. ties to NATO ‘very strong’ - Politico, Jul 12 2018

U.S. to sanction Turkey for receiving S-400 missiles - Ahval, Jul 27 2018

Trump administration to hit Russia with new sanctions for Skripal poisoning - NBC News Aug 8 2018

Space Force Is Trump’s Answer to New Russian and Chinese Weapons - FP, Aug 10 2018

US Sanctions Chinese Entity Over Purchase of Russian Fighters, S-400s – Treasury - Sputnik, Sep 20 2018

Trump hints at punitive action against India for buying S-400 from Russia - India Today, Oct 11 2018

Trump Agrees to Boost Pentagon's Budget to $750 Bln in 2019 - Reports - Sputnik, Oct 12 2018

Trump says US will withdraw from nuclear arms treaty with Russia - Guardian, Oct 21 2018

Haley Condemns ‘Outrageous’ Russian Firing on Ukrainian Ships - Bloomberg, Nov 26 2018

2 Trump Moves Cost This Russian-American CEO $2.3B - Forbes, Jan 14 2019

https://www.moonofalabama.org/2019/01/putin-asks-and-trump-delivers-here-is-a-list-of-all-the-good-things-trump-did-for-russia.html

[Mole 4,333]

2 hours ago, David Dennison said:

Congress is off this week. 

National emergency.

[GRHorn 105]

2 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

Oh, you were using direct evidence in the legal sense. In that case you should know that there is a whole boatload of circumstantial evidence of collusion.

 

1 minute ago, jimmyjazz said:

Why?  Please show your work, and use historical precedent.

 

You know this to be true?  They haven't even interviewed everyone yet.  I mean, I get it, the Senate is controlled by traitors to the Republic, so that committee is highly predisposed to say "hey we didn't find anything" but at least let the process play out before pronouncing the results.

I was just citing this news article I saw a while back. 

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/ncna970536

6 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

 

Again . . . you have no idea what will be included.  Sorry.

My reasoning is as follows: if there was clear, obvious evidence of collusion or coordination it would’ve leaked already and things would’ve already happened. Especially given the makeup of Mueller’s team. 

[wildcat09 29,386]

3 minutes ago, GRHorn said:

 

I was just citing this news article I saw a while back. 

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/ncna970536

My reasoning is as follows: if there was clear, obvious evidence of collusion or coordination it would’ve leaked already and things would’ve already happened. Especially given the makeup of Mueller’s team. 

This is hysterical. Literally nothing has leaked from Mueller's team. Get the fuck out of here with this nonsense.

[jimmyjazz 46,130]

1 minute ago, GRHorn said:

My reasoning is as follows: if there was clear, obvious evidence of collusion or coordination it would’ve leaked already and things would’ve already happened. Especially given the makeup of Mueller’s team. 

Well, at least you're consistently illogical.

[suddenly shaggy 929]

Lulz, like any of those are actually issues Russia gives two shits about, except sanctions. Those were imposed by Congress and repealed by Putin. 

Aluminum Stocks Jump As Trump Sanctions Target Putin Pal - Investors, Apr 9 2018

 

About that...

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/01/27/u-s-lifts-sanctions-on-rusal-other-firms-linked-to-russias-deripaska.html

US lifts sanctions on Rusal and other firms linked to Russian oligarch Deripaska

• President Donald Trump's administration on Sunday lifted sanctions on aluminum giant Rusal and other Russian firms linked to oligarch Oleg Deripaska, despite a Democratic-led push in the U.S. Congress to maintain the restrictions.

 

Keep fucking that chicken Fozz. 

[GRHorn 105]

6 minutes ago, Brian Fantana said:

Good lord. First he knows better than real, actual doctors, now he knows better than federal investigators. What can't this man do?

Juggle 

[Captainant 27,767]

My favorite thing about flat-headed rubes who say "NO DIRECT EVIDENCE!!! NO SMOCKING GUN!!!" is that a smoking gun in and of itself is circumstantial evidence and not direct evidence lol, and yet it's used as the rhetorical gold standard in their talking point.

[wildcat09 29,386]

27 minutes ago, GRHorn said:

 

I’m happy to let the investigation run its course, although over two years since the Inauguration does seem like it should be enough. Evidently the Senate Intelligence Committee is gonna report back that there’s no direct evidence of collusion, so there’s that.

I actually agree with Hugo and think we should get a pretty thorough report from Mueller. We probably disagree on how significant it will be. Y’all will all yell it’s the end of the world. Republicans will say see what a waste of time. Rinse, repeat. 

None of this is Republic threatening stuff, sorry. 

Luckily for Republicans, borderline-treasonous activity by their presidential campaigns is baked in to people's expectations.

God forbid a Democrat use the wrong email address though.

[jimmyjazz 46,130]

Just a reminder:  let us all remember that circumstantial evidence is not admissible in a court of law.

[Brian Fantana 6,690]

4 minutes ago, GRHorn said:

 

I was just citing this news article I saw a while back. 

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/ncna970536

My reasoning is as follows: if there was clear, obvious evidence of collusion or coordination it would’ve leaked already and things would’ve already happened. Especially given the makeup of Mueller’s team. 

[SmokeyTheBear 5,562]

7 minutes ago, Fozzz said:

Someone was nice enough to compile a list of things Trump's admin has done so far that are against Russia's interests.  However, knowing the wily Putin, this is simply meant to provide plausible deniability against the charge of Trump being a Russian asset.

https://www.moonofalabama.org/2019/01/putin-asks-and-trump-delivers-here-is-a-list-of-all-the-good-things-trump-did-for-russia.html

Do you think the Presidential power is absolute? Does he singularly make every decision the federal government makes? 

[Brian Fantana 6,690]

Just now, jimmyjazz said:

Just a reminder:  let us all remember that circumstantial evidence is not admissible in a court of law.

@EMAWesome please confirm.

[4th&Five 41,590]

Y’all need to put GR on ignore. He’s a troll or just dumb as fuck but either way there’s no point in debating people like that. 

[Horn Under a Bad Sign 20,490]

2 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

Just a reminder:  let us all remember that circumstantial evidence is not admissible in a court of law.

Wait a minute ... did somebody actually say that circumstantial evidence is not admissible in a court of law?

If so, has this person never watched any crime drama in history, beginning with Perry Mason on down the line?

[GRHorn 105]

 

2 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

Luckily for Republicans, borderline-treasonous activity by their presidential campaigns is baked in to people's expectations.

God forbid a Democrat use the wrong email address though.

I’ll look forward to reading the details of “borderline treasonous” activity in the reports. 

5 minutes ago, Captainant said:

My favorite thing about flat-headed rubes who say "NO DIRECT EVIDENCE!!! NO SMOCKING GUN!!!" is that a smoking gun in and of itself is circumstantial evidence and not direct evidence lol, and yet it's used as the rhetorical gold standard in their talking point.

 

4 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

Just a reminder:  let us all remember that circumstantial evidence is not admissible in a court of law.

"If we write a report based upon the facts that we have, then we don't have anything that would suggest there was collusion by the Trump campaign and Russia,"

"There is no factual evidence of collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia."

Quotes from the chairman of Intelligence Committee.