Jump to content

Donald Trump 2019

Francisco 2.0

By Francisco 2.0
in Cloak Room

 Share

Recommended Posts

gmr548

gmr548 16576

Posted
Posted
43 minutes ago, Blotto said:

It's easy to become numb to all the inane bullshit that leaks out of Trump's orange blowhole (yes I know Trump counts on this), but the fact that this had to be stated by the person who stated it, in direct response to the president of the US.......damn. That's where we are as a country. 

do you even but her emails bruh

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

JimmyJames

JimmyJames 12271

Posted
Posted

As president of the United States of America, I give a solemn vow to support the constitution and the freedoms our valient warriors have fought for. 

Unless they offer some dirt on my opponent in the election. Then whose to say that there’s something wrong with that? I mean that will help me win right? They may want something in exchange but I have too much principles to fall for that. 

Trust me. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Francisco 2.0

Francisco 2.0 32387

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Case-by-case basis now. Whew.  Was getting worried that any country would peddle info and Team trump would take it all in.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-foreign-dirt-2020-campaign-will-handle-foreign-information-on-opponents-on-a-case-by-case-basis/

Quote

President Trump's 2020 reelection campaign will handle damaging information on political opponents provided by foreign governments and entities on a "case by case basis," according to the campaign's top spokesperson. 

Asked about Mr. Trump's assertion that he would be receptive to dirt on rivals offered by foreigners, Kayleigh McEnany, the national press secretary for the president's reelection bid, told CBSN's "Red & Blue" that campaign staff should take the president's comments as a "directive" to handle foreign dirt through a two-pronged approach.

 

Quote

"The president's directive, as he said, [it's] a case by case basis. He said he would likely do both: Listen to what they have to say, but also report it to the FBI," McEnany said. She denied that the president's comments were an "open invitation" for foreign actors to interfere in the 2020 campaign.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
JimmyJames

JimmyJames 12271

Posted
Posted
28 minutes ago, Nivek said:


Lunch in Russia.

Well to be fair it’s not easy coming up with credible talking points to respond to trump’s latest criminal admissions. I actually pity the Igor who has to create the memo to disperse somehow justifying what he said. 

Tough job. But they’ll come up with something. No choice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
henrygandorf

henrygandorf 29189

Posted
Posted

so after seeing a few interviews, it has become very clear that the gop directive/talking points went like this:

-he definitely said a lot of bad shit, so the spin is he didn't say he would cooperate and take info, he said he would do both listen and call the fbi.  make sure to emphasize both when you're giving interviews.  not just that he thinks it's ok to get the info.

i'm not a doctor, but if it's information you're discussing, once you "listen", you have that information, right?  or at least you know what information is out there in a general sense.  doesn't that kinda defeat the purpose of "well we called the fbi right after!?!?"

fucking clown shoes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
JimmyJames

JimmyJames 12271

Posted
Posted
Just now, henrygandorf said:

wouldn't you think at some point, trump would look the god of treason in the eye, and say, "not today"?

Mental illness is a bitch. So no.

And while I have much sympathy with most people with mental illness, that sympathy ends when said asshole decides to run for president on a lark to feed his overwhelming ego and proceeds to take a giant shit on all of us. 

My empathy has a limit.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
ChiTownDoc

ChiTownDoc 21143

Posted
Posted

The trump R’s are ok with all this and more because they really think they’re saving the country from libzzzz and literally anything is ok.  Stop waiting for some imaginary threshold they won’t give this motherfucker a pass on. 

That’s why we should try several of them for treason, then either hang them or put a bullet between their eyes.  

  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Hugo Stiglitz

Hugo Stiglitz 23367

Posted
Posted
5 minutes ago, SmokeyTheBear said:

Trump on fox news going on a 45 minute diatribe. Hilarious listening to the hosts trying to try and wrangle him through talking points.

Welp, this might help explain Huckabeef’s sudden departure.   

Trump sees his horrible poll numbers, thinks his media strategy needs shock treatment, Huckabeef runs for the exit.  Trump is going to be his own press secretary.  

Expect Trump to do more interviews and say more outrageous shit to divert the media coverage from the Mueller Report fallout which should be ongoing for the next year. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Enfield

Enfield 109

Posted
Posted
15 hours ago, JimmyJames said:

I’ll ask again. How much would trump sell Alaska back to the Russians for in exchange for dirt on the dem nominee? Any of you fucking trolls know? 

PM Christopher Steele. He has the going rate.

  • Fuck You 12
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Enfield

Enfield 109

Posted
Posted
11 hours ago, JimmyJames said:

The trolls have gone radio silent. Regrouping. Collecting talking points. 

Sorry. I’ve been busy negotiating a book deal with ABC on some dirt I have. Time is of the essence so they have to act quick!

  • Fuck You 8
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Enfield

Enfield 109

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Welp, this might help explain Huckabeef’s sudden departure.   

Trump sees his horrible poll numbers, thinks his media strategy needs shock treatment, Huckabeef runs for the exit.  Trump is going to be his own press secretary.  

Expect Trump to do more interviews and say more outrageous shit to divert the media coverage from the Mueller Report fallout which should be ongoing for the next year. 

What did the poll numbers look like right before the 2016 election? 

  • Fuck You 14
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Chad Fuck

Chad Fuck 17659

Posted
Posted
7 minutes ago, Francisco 2.0 said:

Well, besides being a soft core porn chick and married only so she could live here (and that whole chain-migration thing with her folks that Trump hates) she's as classy as Jackie O was.

 

"It" is, huh?  I'm sure she's flattered. 

 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites
SuingToGetAMessageBoard?

SuingToGetAMessageBoard? 3861

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

they were a wet dream to where he is now.

they were also fairly accurate.

nah.  i see people saying that a lot, but i don't buy it.  it looks like hillary was supposed to win WI by 6, MI and PA by 4.5.  lost them all.  those aren't really that small of errors in today's political climate where every election is decided by a few percentage points.

 

but one thing i've wondered is if they will be more accurate this time around.  the 'shy trump supporter' theory doesn't seem to have any real support by people that have looked into the data.  but i think something similar might hold some water.  now, more than in 2016, trump supporters tend to shout from the rooftops their support.  i bet those opinions make their way into the polls more effectively now than in 2016.  so my gut says that a 42% approval rating now probably means a lower real number than a 42% rating in 2016.  it's kinda the 'shy' theory, but just a little tangential to it.

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

henrygandorf 29189

Posted
Posted
9 minutes ago, Enfield said:

You electoral college at all, Bro?

i understand how the ec works.  you posted a link with the addition "found them" and that link shows him down by 3 points in a national poll.  in the final national poll he lost by slightly less than 3 points.  that poll (that you posted) was accurate.  that poll was also way better than anything circulating now, with the exception of "trump's secret internal polls nobody's ever seen".

do you think the current state polls paint a flattering picture for trump right now?  are you reading into any of the new strategy for typically blue states we've been hearing about?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Francisco 2.0

Francisco 2.0 32387

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Why is anyone surprised. He's the self professed King of Debt.  Gary Johnson voters must be so proud.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/dc-politics/trump-still-owes-dc-7-million-in-inauguration-costs-as-he-plans-july-fourth-gala/2019/06/13/c55565b6-8df5-11e9-8f69-a2795fca3343_story.html?utm_term=.4ea439bde157

 

Quote

President Trump’s speech at the Lincoln Memorial on the Fourth of July is expected to drive up security costs for an annual event that draws hundreds of thousands of visitors to the nation’s capital.

But the president has still not fully paid the bill for the last time he addressed a massive crowd on the Mall: His 2017 inauguration.

 

Quote

The Trump administration and Congress owe D.C. more than $7 million in expenses from Trump’s inauguration, according to federal and city financial records. The total cost of the four-day celebration, which culminated with a parade and gathering of roughly 600,000 people on the Mall, was $27.3 million.

As a result, the District has been forced to dip into a special fund that covers annual security costs for protecting the city from terrorist threats and hosting other events such as demonstrations, state funerals and the visits of foreign dignitaries. That fund, which for years was adequately replenished by federal dollars, is now on track to enter the red by this fall, records show.

 

Quote

The situation is riling local officials who say the federal government is not shouldering its fair share of security costs in the Trump era, which has seen an influx of demonstrators to the nation’s capital. The Fourth of July is shaping up as yet another logistical trial, with a reconfigured fireworks display, increased security for the president and at least one group of activists already planning a protest.

“We have and will continue to work closely with our federal partners regardless of administration because ensuring the safety of our residents and visitors is paramount,” John Falcicchio, chief of staff to D.C. Mayor Muriel E. Bowser (D), said in a statement. “Our commitment to this function is iron clad, and all that we ask of our federal partners is continued cooperation and the resources to carry out these activities.”

 

Quote

A senior Trump administration official said the city was given what it originally requested from the federal government, and that when inauguration costs were greater than expected the administration “worked closely with D.C.” and decided to use unspent money in the city’s security fund. He added that District officials have not asked for additional money for the inauguration in subsequent budgets.

City officials disputed the White House account on Friday, saying they had lobbied for additional funding both before the inauguration — when it was already clear the federal reimbursement would be insufficient — and afterward.

 

Quote

Congress originally appropriated roughly $20 million for Trump’s inauguration on Jan. 20, 2017, records show. Although the event was more sparsely attended than either of President Barack Obama’s inaugurations — famously leading to a dispute between White House officials and the Washington press corps over the size of the crowd at Trump’s inaugural address — the costs of hosting it were still formidable.

Most of the expense, about $14 million, came from D.C. police deployments. Among the other line items were fire and emergency medical services, which cost $3.6 million, and transportation services — such as the repaving of Pennsylvania Avenue for the motorcade — that came to $2.2 million.

 

Spoiler

The end result was a $7.3 million overrun for the event. That was not unusual: Obama’s second inauguration in 2013 went over budget by $8.9 million.

But while the Obama White House reimbursed the city’s extra costs through a plan submitted to Congress, the Trump administration has not done so, federal budget documents show. To make up the shortfall, the District tapped its Emergency Planning and Security Fund

That account is also filled with federal money, but the dollars are supposed to be used for the other security costs the city endures year-round as the nation’s capital. Money for presidential inaugurations typically comes on top of federal payments into the fund.

In the past, the fund has been well-stocked, regularly carrying over unspent money from year to year. But for the last several years, the federal government has been placing less money into the account than the city is spending — in fiscal year 2017, for example, $14.9 million was added to the fund while $24.4 million was spent.

Costs have risen because of various events, from the heavily attended 2017 Women’s March to a confrontations between protesters and police after a gathering of white supremacists last summer and the December funeral of former president George H.W. Bush.

In the first quarter of the 2019 fiscal year, which ends Sept. 30, the District had already burned through $4.4 million of the $14 million in the fund. At that rate the fund could be running a multimillion-dollar deficit by fall.

“The point now is that the account has been drained, and being careful with the money has not been enough to make up for not being reimbursed” for the inauguration, said D.C. Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton (D), the city’s nonvoting representative in Congress.

The fund could go even further into the hole as warm weather brings more demonstrators and other public gatherings to the nation’s capital — and as the city potentially deals with new costs stemming from Trump’s address to the nation on July 4.

The president’s appearance on the Mall is expected to bring with it a host of new security expenses and logistical headaches, requiring security for his movements and potentially cutting off visitors’ access to nearby Metro stations.

No estimate has been produced of the added costs, though National Park Service spokesman Mike Litterst said security expenses would be shared by the White House, Park Service and U.S. Park Police.

Norton said the federal government’s failure to repay the city for millions in inauguration costs is one more reason Washingtonians should be leery of Trump’s involvement in the Independence Day celebration.

“We still have not been reimbursed,” Norton said. “And now they’re talking about yet another event of a kind we’ve never had before.”

 

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...