Jump to content

Donald Trump 2019

Francisco 2.0

By Francisco 2.0
in Cloak Room

 Share

Recommended Posts

Js1

Js1 85757

Posted
Posted
7 hours ago, JimmyJames said:

The criminals in charge of the senate won’t remove trump. Not sure what you’re arguing here.

Let me walk you through Anastasis' logic here.

Trump is a criminal and should be impeached.

But the Senate won't convict.

WITCH HUNT.  You dumb libs.  

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Replies 48.5k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Hugo Stiglitz

    2695

  • 4th&Five

    1699

  • jimmyjazz

    1286

  • atomheartbevo

    1219

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

GHOSTUSER
GHOSTUSER

I fucking love this President. My 2 faves during my lifetime are Trump and Nixon. They share a lot of similarities and were besieged by the same groups of assholes. No I’m not trolling. Y’all, the lef

Francisco 2.0
Francisco 2.0
Brisketexan
Brisketexan

This.....is magnificent. The "younger generation" is going to have to work double-time to fund YOUR Social Security, which YOUR generation of elected officials raided the fuck out of.  And which,

Posted Images

jimmyjazz

jimmyjazz 46476

Posted
Posted
11 minutes ago, Horn Under a Bad Sign said:

Trump's former national security advisor:  Some in the White House are dangers to the Constitution.

It's amazing how deep the swamp is.  Even the President can't avoid appointing a few lyin' liars to key positions.  Sure, they LOOK like red-blooded Americans who only want to MAGA 'til the sun comes up, but in reality some of them (like McMaster) turn out to be undercover libs just trying to bring down the man.  Do something!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
SimonBolivar

SimonBolivar 10961

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, slorch said:

The age hate by the left is so trippy.  You'll embrace the idealism and ignorance of a 16 year old but want to write off the voice of folks who have 'seen it all and done it all.'

 

That, my friends, is begging for disaster.

 

I mean hell, ship em off after 70.  They're worthless anyhoo.  and this 35 year age minimum for POTUS... that's ridiculous.  Make it 12.

Ah yes the wise sages who voted in Donald Trump +8. 

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
elguapo

elguapo 4587

Posted
Posted
The age hate by the left is so trippy.  You'll embrace the idealism and ignorance of a 16 year old but want to write off the voice of folks who have 'seen it all and done it all.'

 

That, my friends, is begging for disaster.

 

I mean hell, ship em off after 70.  They're worthless anyhoo.  and this 35 year age minimum for POTUS... that's ridiculous.  Make it 12.

Did someone forget to change your diaper?

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Js1

Js1 85757

Posted
Posted
5 minutes ago, elguapo said:

Did someone forget to change your diaper?

Personally I LOVE the wisdom of the generation who can't use technology in the year 2019.  They have A LOT to share about the modern world. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
DDD Dad

DDD Dad 14375

Posted
Posted
goddam, you are a fucking psychopath. why are you so fucked up in the head? almost every keystroke leads to something just 'off' about you. i mean, sucking another man's dick is like the most normal thing you've ever shared about yourself. Get some help man.

Can someone point me to these revelations? Somehow I missed them.

Kthanksbye
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest

Guest

Posted
Posted
11 minutes ago, Js1 said:

Personally I LOVE the wisdom of the generation who can't use technology in the year 2019.  They have A LOT to share about the modern world. 

A manual transmission...

Anti-theft device of the 2010's...

Link to comment
Share on other sites
High Plains Drifter

High Plains Drifter 11057

Posted
Posted
49 minutes ago, Horn Under a Bad Sign said:

Trump's former national security advisor:  Some in the White House are dangers to the Constitution.

https://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/442844-former-trump-national-security-adviser-says-some-white-house#.XNOoyf55O-o.twitter


Iconoclast's hero!

 

By "some" he means Dotard and all his advisors and cabinet heads, right?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Anastasis

Anastasis 23508

Posted
Posted
54 minutes ago, Asithappens said:

Maybe you can help me with this: how would moving forward with impeachment help solve this constitutional crisis?

Because impeachment is the necessary and first constitutional step in the process of removal.  If you believe that we are in a constitutional crisis, you should pull the constitutional levers that you control to correct the problem. 

That said, I don't think removal by the Senate will occur.  I don't think that they would get all the Ds voting for removal (looking at you Joe) much less flip the necessary R seats.  I think that that would have been different under difference circumstances, specifically a clear conclusion on coordination or conspiracy by Mueller to wrap up volume 1.

However that being said If I was in the position I would still proceed with impeachment because 1) the political theater would be choice, so it is something I would like to see happen and 2) politically, it gives the Democrats a chance to put every GOP Senator on record with a vote. There is plenty of publicly available information to support removal at this point, primarily related to obstruction, but there are a few sweeteners that could be piled on on top. Lay that out in a coherent and tight case under open proceedings, and make all the GOP Senators  go on the record. The only that that would make it even more advantageous politically is if the Ds were able to force open deliberation, but that is unlikely.

Note that my political calculus is operating under the assumption that a D takes the WH in 2020, that impeachment and a failed removal does not impact that inevitability, and that the real political calculus here revolves around taking control of the Senate.  I think that an impeachment and the circus  around removal would open up fault lines that would put some GOP senators at greater risk in 2020.  That all said, Pelosi is the sharpest political tool in DC.  If she doesn't see the political advantage in impeachment, it is probably for good reason. Spineless, but probably with a good political calculus behind it.   

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites
wildcat09

wildcat09 29453

Posted
Posted
30 minutes ago, Js1 said:

Personally I LOVE the wisdom of the generation who can't use technology in the year 2019.  They have A LOT to share about the modern world. 

Boomers especially can fuck all the way off. The point of respecting elders is that they’re supposed to have developed wisdom through their experiences. Actual wisdom should absolutely be respected and we should all hope to learn from wise people.

But, despite their age, most boomers aren’t wise. If anything, most boomers get dumber and more selfish and childish every year they age.

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Anastasis

Anastasis 23508

Posted
Posted
33 minutes ago, Js1 said:

Personally I LOVE the wisdom of the generation who can't use technology in the year 2019.  They have A LOT to share about the modern world. 

This is ageist nonsense. One of the last acceptable forms of stereotyping and prejudice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
retread

retread 2951

Posted
Posted
15 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

There is plenty of publicly available information to support removal at this point, primarily related to obstruction, but there are a few sweeteners that could be piled on on top. Lay that out in a coherent and tight case under open proceedings, and make all the GOP Senators  go on the record. The only that that would make it even more advantageous politically is if the Ds were able to force open deliberation, but that is unlikely.

imo this is part of the reason that undecideds have checked out on following the investigation. The lines of inquiry are taking place in several places at once, and often the witnesses get away with basically refusing to answer.

Open impeachment and bring every one of the members of the gang that couldn't shoot straight in one room in front of the American people. Put it all out there in one place.

Like you say, Pelosi may decide it's not worth it, but I get the feeling that she and Nadler are driving towards impeachment as much as they can.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Irwin F Fletcher

Irwin F Fletcher 3551

Posted
Posted (edited)
21 minutes ago, Fozzz said:

I'm starting to think this disease is terminal.  Thoughts and prayers, Hugo.

https://twitter.com/cenkuygur/status/1126351043619577856

I'm assuming that phones calls between Trump (Oval Office) and Putin are recorded. Am I off base on this thought?

Edited by Irwin F Fletcher
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Irwin F Fletcher

Irwin F Fletcher 3551

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, DigglerontheHoof said:

DOTUS doesn't even want his attorneys to take notes and you think he allows his calls to be recorded?

So when Putin comes on the line there isn't a script saying "this call may be recorded for quality assurance purposes"? Well fuck.

 

Where's the NSA when you need them?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Brisketexan

Brisketexan 105576

Posted
Posted
26 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

This is ageist nonsense. One of the last acceptable forms of stereotyping and prejudice.

Data, dude.

Quote

11 percent of users older than 65 shared a hoax, while just 3 percent of users 18 to 29 did. Facebook users ages 65 and older shared more than twice as many fake news articles than the next-oldest age group of 45 to 65, and nearly seven times as many fake news articles as the youngest age group (18 to 29).

......

Why do older users share fake news more often? There are two competing theories, for which we still lack good evidence:

The first is that older people, who came to the internet later, lack the digital literacy skills of their younger counterparts. The second is that people experience cognitive decline as they age, making them likelier to fall for hoaxes.

I suspect it's a combo of both.  But come on.  This is a known thing.

Quote

Forget being lonely or too patriotic—the real reason it's so easy to scam old people is that they become more gullible with age.

That's according to researchers at the University of Iowa, who studied a part of our brains that controls belief and doubt called the ventromedial prefrontal cortex (via ScienceDaily).

The softball-sized area sits in our heads above the eyes and deteriorates rapidly with age, making it harder to spot a scam, even it's an obvious one.

The party that is willing to be con artists will own the old people vote.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
achooloco

achooloco 1086

Posted
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, slorch said:

The age hate by the left is so trippy.  You'll embrace the idealism and ignorance of a 16 year old but want to write off the voice of folks who have 'seen it all and done it all.'

 

That, my friends, is begging for disaster.

 

I mean hell, ship em off after 70.  They're worthless anyhoo.  and this 35 year age minimum for POTUS... that's ridiculous.  Make it 12.

not sure where you are getting this age hate by the left. it's not age hate, it's hate of a piece of shit human being who doesn't have a single redeemable quality. Seriously, he has none. shitty father, shitty human, shitty businessman, shitty christian. And while it shouldn't be either/or and I wouldn't make the choice unless I had to, i'll take idealism/ignorance (one still has time to learn as we get older) over a hypocritical disgusting fat ass who panders to racists.

And who is writing off people that have "seen it all and done it all"? are you claiming trump been there done that? Mr. largest single taxpayer loser during the 80s?! HAHAHAHAHA. honestly, i have no idea what you are criticizing, unless you think the criticism of trumps age/sundowning is being imparted to all older people regardless of context. quick glance and all i see are comments stating reagan looked different at the end of his presidency and generally that the 70s take a toll on person, both reasonable takes.

edit: well shit, now there are more posts, my bad should have gone through more of the thread. but not sure those calling out the olds are "left". they hadn't really posted before your post either...

Edited by achooloco
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Fozzz

Fozzz 152

Posted
Posted
16 minutes ago, High Plains Drifter said:

 

I wouldn't call it "direct evidence", but its one more data point that supports the overall theory that DOTARD is Putin's bitch boy.

This is silly.  He's distancing himself from Bolton because his admin's coup attempt was a spectacular failure, and he hates being associated with failure.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
SimonBolivar

SimonBolivar 10961

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, slorch said:

A manual transmission...

Anti-theft device of the 2010's...

They're really going to be out of luck with manual cars taking up what 2% of market share? I can't remember the last time I approved a loan with a manual transmission. The real trick is to get the youth on a typewriter. We have 2 or 3 documents that require a typewriter still and I enjoyed watching two of my employees spend 15 minutes trying to figure how to use it and the caps lock really threw them for a loop. 

 

However they did eventually figure it out unlike one of my colleagues that was terminated because she refused to use the $250,000 new tech we had purchased because she didn't need it 30 years ago so she does need it now (as we are crushed by our competition in the region using said tech). I don't know what age you are when you decide everything new is bad, but I never want to reach it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest Lobo

Guest Lobo

Posted
Posted

Yeah, I want to know where you still need a manual typewriter for 2 or 3 document types.  And then after that, I want to know what the $259k in new tech was, and what she insists on using instead of it.  

Thanks

Link to comment
Share on other sites
wildcat09

wildcat09 29453

Posted
Posted
49 minutes ago, retread said:

imo this is part of the reason that undecideds have checked out on following the investigation. The lines of inquiry are taking place in several places at once, and often the witnesses get away with basically refusing to answer.

Open impeachment and bring every one of the members of the gang that couldn't shoot straight in one room in front of the American people. Put it all out there in one place.

Like you say, Pelosi may decide it's not worth it, but I get the feeling that she and Nadler are driving towards impeachment as much as they can.

And so long as this remains the case, it's basically background noise to most Americans. The power of impeachment proceedings is the ability to consolidate everything into one coherent case against Trump and his associates in proceedings that the entire country will actually follow.  Present the entire case of corruption and ineptitude and make the Senate Republicans vote to protect it. When they do, hammer them with ads that say "look at what they're willing to protect so they can cut Don Jr's taxes to take away your healthcare!" 

This shit isn't rocket science.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
hayden_horn

hayden_horn 11365

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, SimonBolivar said:

Banking. We'll send you an email to esign a $100,000 car loan, but if you want a safety deposit box I have to turn on the Panasonic KX-E2000.

haha. i was in escrow 10 years ago, and was amazed that fax machines were still a thing. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
texastough

texastough 1129

Posted
Posted
6 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

And so long as this remains the case, it's basically background noise to most Americans. The power of impeachment proceedings is the ability to consolidate everything into one coherent case against Trump and his associates in proceedings that the entire country will actually follow.  Present the entire case of corruption and ineptitude and make the Senate Republicans vote to protect it. When they do, hammer them with ads that say "look at what they're willing to protect so they can cut Don Jr's taxes to take away your healthcare!" 

This shit isn't rocket science.

Exactly. I still suspect/hope the dems are waiting for the right timing. Not to actually remove him from office but to have max effect on the election.

Also, during the hearings, don't just focus on Russia and obstruction, but all of his lies about everything, his hate speeches/inciting violence, etc etc. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
SimonBolivar

SimonBolivar 10961

Posted
Posted (edited)
15 minutes ago, Lobo said:

  And then after that, I want to know what the $259k in new tech was, and what she insists on using instead of it.  

Thanks

Core systems that are versatile are expensive for smaller FI and we also pay monthly to use them. I think last time I checked the bill ours was around $19K/month after the initial purchase, but that includes maintenance and a ton of add-on programs and features. She wasn't having it because she was going to have to relearn everything as the new core is a different company than the old core. Same general idea with the same products offered, but a new UI was too much for her.

Edited by SimonBolivar
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Asithappens

Asithappens 974

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Anastasis said:

Because impeachment is the necessary and first constitutional step in the process of removal.  If you believe that we are in a constitutional crisis, you should pull the constitutional levers that you control to correct the problem. 

Except impeachment won't solve what ails us.

The Senate won't convict.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Chooky

Chooky 13321

Posted
Posted
14 hours ago, Iconoclast Texan said:

Chicago deep dish sucks ass. It’s kind of actually embarrassing that a UT grad invented it at Pizzeria Uno. I’m not a huge fan of deep dish but there are LOTS of better deep dish options other than Chicago. Detroit style blows away the competition when it comes to deep dish

Bugs Bunny:  Duck season!

Daffy Duck:  Rabbit season!

Iconoclast Texan:  Penis inside me!

Bugs Bunny:  Dude.

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Popular Post
wildcat09

wildcat09 29453

Posted
  • Popular Post
Posted (edited)
12 minutes ago, Asithappens said:

Except impeachment won't solve what ails us.

The Senate won't convict.

"We won't do our duty because we know Republicans will refuse to do theirs, so vote for us" is an extraordinarily shitty message.

Edited by wildcat09
  • Like 13
Link to comment
Share on other sites
henrygandorf

henrygandorf 29199

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Anastasis said:

Because impeachment is the necessary and first constitutional step in the process of removal.  If you believe that we are in a constitutional crisis, you should pull the constitutional levers that you control to correct the problem. 

That said, I don't think removal by the Senate will occur.  I don't think that they would get all the Ds voting for removal (looking at you Joe) much less flip the necessary R seats.  I think that that would have been different under difference circumstances, specifically a clear conclusion on coordination or conspiracy by Mueller to wrap up volume 1.

However that being said If I was in the position I would still proceed with impeachment because 1) the political theater would be choice, so it is something I would like to see happen and 2) politically, it gives the Democrats a chance to put every GOP Senator on record with a vote. There is plenty of publicly available information to support removal at this point, primarily related to obstruction, but there are a few sweeteners that could be piled on on top. Lay that out in a coherent and tight case under open proceedings, and make all the GOP Senators  go on the record. The only that that would make it even more advantageous politically is if the Ds were able to force open deliberation, but that is unlikely.

Note that my political calculus is operating under the assumption that a D takes the WH in 2020, that impeachment and a failed removal does not impact that inevitability, and that the real political calculus here revolves around taking control of the Senate.  I think that an impeachment and the circus  around removal would open up fault lines that would put some GOP senators at greater risk in 2020.  That all said, Pelosi is the sharpest political tool in DC.  If she doesn't see the political advantage in impeachment, it is probably for good reason. Spineless, but probably with a good political calculus behind it.   

i've come around on this and think they need to impeach at this point.  once mueller talks, they'll pull the trigger.  everything until then is posturing.

all the d's would vote yes.  zero r's would (maybe 1 but i doubt it).  it wouldn't come close to 2/3 they would need.  and i even doubt most would feel bad going on the record, they could easily claim party line unity - just like they always do.  fear of getting primaried is plenty.

i don't think it'll affect 2020 negatively, and it might help take back the senate.

i'm starting to see little downside, assuming the dems can get organized on it.  and that's a pretty big assumption.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
DDD Dad

DDD Dad 14375

Posted
Posted

Also, as was aptly noted on today's The Daily podcast, if they begin impeachment proceedings it strengthens any subpoena efforts to obtain information, as it would take away an argument in response that the legislative purpose supporting the subpoena is suspect.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Anastasis

Anastasis 23508

Posted
Posted
8 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Data, dude.

I suspect it's a combo of both.  But come on.  This is a known thing.

The party that is willing to be con artists will own the old people vote.

That is a deflection and narrowing of what was posted by JS, which dismissed an entire group of people based on only on their age and suggested they lacked the ability to contribute to modern society in a meaningful way.

What you are engaging in is the same type of nonsense that allowed people historically to justify to themselves disenfranchisement of minorities.  Even under cloak of science.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Brisketexan

Brisketexan 105576

Posted
Posted
Just now, Anastasis said:

That is a deflection and narrowing of what was posted by JS, which dismissed an entire group of people based on only on their age and suggested they lacked the ability to contribute to modern society in a meaningful way.

What you are engaging in is the same type of nonsense that allowed people historically to justify to themselves disenfranchisement of minorities.  Even under cloak of science.  

I don't dismiss all old people.

I just think that we should build traps baited with Luby's, set to go off at 4:30 p.m. the day before election day.  If that's wrong, I don't wanna be right.

  • Like 7
  • Haha 2
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...