Jump to content

Donald Trump 2019

Francisco 2.0

By Francisco 2.0
in Cloak Room

 Share

Recommended Posts

  • 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

yoladu

yoladu 4190

Posted
Posted

not sure if posted elsewhere...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/hillary-clinton-china-if-youre-listening-why-dont-you-get-trumps-tax-returns/2019/05/02/6d2310f6-6cca-11e9-8f44-e8d8bb1df986_story.html?utm_term=.e2bd2c61e8d1

Quote

The 2016 Democratic presidential candidate offered a seemingly tongue-in-cheek hypothetical to Rachel Maddow on her MSNBC show.

“Imagine, Rachel, that you had one of the Democratic nominees for 2020 on your show, and that person said, you know, the only other adversary of ours who is anywhere near as good as the Russians is China,” Clinton told Maddow. “So why should Russia have all the fun? And since Russia is clearly backing Republicans, why don't we ask China to back us?”

“And not only that, China, if you're listening, why don't you get Trump's tax returns?” Clinton continued. “I'm sure our media would richly reward you."

What do you think the reaction from the Right would be if Beto O'Rourke stood at a podium and said this?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
RomaVicta

RomaVicta 30579

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, Grade of D as in David said:

Aren't there pretty strict laws about sweepstakes like these? 

Well, don't turn him in until I get my dinner and picture with President Trump, God bless him and his salty sailor soul!

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
horncyclist

horncyclist 1391

Posted
Posted
13 minutes ago, yoladu said:

not sure if posted elsewhere...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/hillary-clinton-china-if-youre-listening-why-dont-you-get-trumps-tax-returns/2019/05/02/6d2310f6-6cca-11e9-8f44-e8d8bb1df986_story.html?utm_term=.e2bd2c61e8d1

What do you think the reaction from the Right would be if Beto O'Rourke stood at a podium and said this?

Eh, if every democratic running for president isn't soliciting help from a foreign country, then they're just not trying to win. Trump revolutionized campaigning. We're in a new world, guys. Let the foreign solicitation flow. All legal btw. AG out front should have told ya. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Chooky

Chooky 13340

Posted
Posted

Most Russians seem like good people who like a stiff drink and don't mind when shit gets a little weird now and again and they're being led by a handful of irredeemable shitheads who should never be recognized by a civil economic system. Changing that should be in Russian hands alone. Good luck. It'll be ugly. But just offering them a seat at the table is dangerously irresponsible and undermines the core of American conservatism for the last 60 years. Only a soulless fuck who doesn't read books would suggest otherwise, or a Soviet patriot. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Francisco 2.0

Francisco 2.0 32587

Posted
  • Author
Posted
17 minutes ago, TexEx15 said:

 

The POTUS does not understand what freedom of speech means.

 

But he's biblical; was sent by God to Make America Great Again.  Pesky things like basic knowledge of civics, law and history really aren't important here.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Chooky

Chooky 13340

Posted
Posted

Someone should force Trump to put down the remote and read John Lewis Gaddis' 'Strategies of Containment' and then 'The Right Stuff' and then literally anything about Truman and Eisenhower and then literally anything about Ronald Reagan and then literally anything about the Soviet Union.  Today's Republican Party will define this point in history from Colonization and Settlement, Revolution and New Nation, Expansion and Reform, Civil War and Reconstruction, Industrial Age, Imperialism, World War 2, Postwar Boom, Civil Rights and then the Slapstick Grabass Age of Much Fingerfucking and Drooling. 

Opponents of Joseph McCarthy never told him that Russia is good.  They just tried to get him to fucking relax.  Watching Trump bully a bunch of damp pussies into ushering in the rise of a former KGB Director's return to dominance will only be hilarious because most of us won't live long enough to worry about whether that threat ends the same way it did last time.  However, pat your kids on the back and wish 'em luck.  Sounds histrionic, I know, but a high school kid who pays attention could present a coherent argument that Putin's regime is more dangerous than any Soviet Empire, ever.  Reagan put them in bread lines and Trump wants to put them right back on top because they were nice to him at his beauty pageants.  Love it or leave it, you fucking pinko commies.   

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Francisco 2.0

Francisco 2.0 32587

Posted
  • Author
Posted (edited)
6 minutes ago, Chooky said:

Someone should force Trump to put down the remote and read John Lewis Gaddis' 'Strategies of Containment' and then 'The Right Stuff' and then literally anything about Truman and Eisenhower and then literally anything about Ronald Reagan and then literally anything about the Soviet Union.  Today's Republican Party will define this point in history from Colonization and Settlement, Revolution and New Nation, Expansion and Reform, Civil War and Reconstruction, Industrial Age, Imperialism, World War 2, Postwar Boom, Civil Rights and then the Slapstick Grabass Age of Much Fingerfucking and Drooling. 

Opponents of Joseph McCarthy never told him that Russia is good.  They just tried to get him to fucking relax.  Watching Trump bully a bunch of damp pussies into ushering in the rise of a former KGB Director's return to dominance will only be hilarious because most of us won't live long enough to worry about whether that threat ends the same way it did last time.  However, pat your kids on the back and wish 'em luck.  Sounds histrionic, I know, but a high school kid who pays attention could present a coherent argument that Putin's regime is more dangerous than any Soviet Empire, ever.  Reagan put them in bread lines and Trump wants to put them right back on top because they were nice to him at his beauty pageants.  Love it or leave it, you fucking pinko commies.   

 

giphy.gif

Edited by Francisco 2.0
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
JimmyJames

JimmyJames 12271

Posted
Posted
11 minutes ago, Francisco 2.0 said:

But he's biblical; was sent by God to Make America Great Again.  Pesky things like basic knowledge of civics, law and history really aren't important here.

 

 

I’m trying to decide whether or not he doesn’t understand the first amendment, is just trolling, or both. 

Historians for centuries will study the complete stupidity of trump tweets to attempt to answer such questions. 

What a fucking embarrassment. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Francisco 2.0

Francisco 2.0 32587

Posted
  • Author
Posted
1 minute ago, JimmyJames said:

I’m trying to decide whether or not he doesn’t understand the first amendment, is just trolling, or both. 

Historians for centuries will study the complete stupidity of trump tweets to attempt to answer such questions. 

What a fucking embarrassment. 

Oh, there's no way in hell he understands the First Amendment, or the Second, or any of them.  He would need a Powerpoint to *maybe* get a basic understanding, and then, he would fuck it up with a tweet or three later.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
JimmyJames

JimmyJames 12271

Posted
Posted
8 hours ago, Anastasis said:

And yet, nothing in my post was inaccurate.

I remember when you guys use to care about this stuff too.

https://www.aclu.org/why-fisa-amendments-act-unconstitutional 

Did you get raped by a guy attempting to serve a FISA warrant or something? Because it seems like a particular obsession of yours. 

I agree it may be too easy to get warrants in general. But that’s an issue you should take up with law enforcement in general and the lawmakers who “back the blue.”

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Anastasis

Anastasis 23717

Posted
Posted (edited)
2 minutes ago, JimmyJames said:

Did you get raped by a guy attempting to serve a FISA warrant or something? Because it seems like a particular obsession of yours. 

Yes. Abuses of the unconstitutional surveillance apparatus are kind of are a thing of mine. Good of you to notice. 

Edited by Anastasis
Link to comment
Share on other sites
JimmyJames

JimmyJames 12271

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, 4th&Five said:

Twitter shouldn’t ban hate speech from conservatives but the president should go after snl? Got it. 

Trump-tweet-2.png

Dang. Wouldn’t ya know it? Old trumpy bear isn’t all that consistent on his views.

The guy is easier to read than a kindergarten coloring book. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
JimmyJames

JimmyJames 12271

Posted
Posted
Just now, Anastasis said:

Yes. Abuses of the unconstitutional surveillance apparatus are kind of are a thing of mine. Good of you to notice. 

Maybe you missed my point. If that’s abuse, law enforcement does it every single day arresting Bob the alleged drug smuggler. Why are you making such a special case about FISA warrants? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Anastasis

Anastasis 23717

Posted
Posted (edited)
3 minutes ago, JimmyJames said:

Maybe you missed my point. If that’s abuse, law enforcement does it every single day arresting Bob the alleged drug smuggler. Why are you making such a special case about FISA warrants? 

Because I actually love the war on drugs and think that it and the related abuses by the police and prosecutors is an awesome thing. I have a long posting history of precisely that position. Easy to find all my posts advocating that position. You should try it.  

Edited by Anastasis
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WhatTheBuck

WhatTheBuck 28929

Posted
Posted
14 minutes ago, Francisco 2.0 said:

Oh, there's no way in hell he understands the First Amendment, or the Second, or any of them.  He would need a Powerpoint to *maybe* get a basic understanding, and then, he would fuck it up with a tweet or three later.

His name isn't mentioned in the Constitution so he never read it. 

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

JimmyJames 12271

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, Anastasis said:

Because I actually love the war on drugs and think that it and the related abuses by the police and prosecutors is an awesome thing. I have a long posting history of precisely that position. Easy to find all my posts advocating that position. You should try it.  

Well ok. 

A. I can see you’re being sarcastic. But correct me if my internet interpretation skills are off.

B. No offense, but I really don’t care enough to search your post history on any subject. 

So basically you acknowledge that as the law is currently interpreted and enforced, the fisa warrants were valid, you just disagree with the way the law is currently interpreted and enforced.  Fine. 

If so, you should stop implying that the investigation into trump was somehow special and based on false warrants. Because it was allowed under the law, at least as its currently interpreted and enforced. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Anastasis

Anastasis 23717

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

You keep using that word. What do the courts say?

What do civil liberties groups like the ACLU say?

 

https://www.aclu.org/issues/national-security/privacy-and-surveillance/warrantless-surveillance-under-section-702-fisa

Under Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), the U.S. government engages in mass, warrantless surveillance of Americans’ and foreigners’ phone calls, text messages, emails, and other electronic communications. Information collected under the law without a warrant can be used to prosecute and imprison people, even for crimes that have nothing to do with national security. Given our nation’s history of abusing its surveillance authorities, and the secrecy surrounding the program, we should be concerned that Section 702 is and will be used to disproportionately target disfavored groups, whether minority communities, political activists, or even journalists.

Section 702 is set to expire at the end of 2017. The Trump administration wants Congress to make the law permanent. We strongly oppose those efforts and call on Congress to significantly reform the law, or allow it to sunset.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
JimmyJames

JimmyJames 12271

Posted
Posted (edited)
6 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

You keep using that word. What do the courts say?

I’ll answer that for you. The courts say it’s fine and no court would ever in a million years say they were unconstitutional or even improper. It’s not even a close question in fact which makes me wonder why he keeps banging that chicken. 

Edited by JimmyJames
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
horncyclist

horncyclist 1391

Posted
Posted
Why not start your own conservative social media platform?
oh yeah, because it always ends with getting overrun by white nationalists and infiltrated by undercover FBI agents trying to prevent the next upcoming mass murder. 
MAGA
Please do this. Let them all get together. While we're at it, let them build their walled conservative utopian colony that Glenn Beck wanted to start up a few years ago. Who is John Galt?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
David Dennison

David Dennison 19537

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, Anastasis said:

What do civil liberties groups like the ACLU say?

 

https://www.aclu.org/issues/national-security/privacy-and-surveillance/warrantless-surveillance-under-section-702-fisa

Under Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), the U.S. government engages in mass, warrantless surveillance of Americans’ and foreigners’ phone calls, text messages, emails, and other electronic communications. Information collected under the law without a warrant can be used to prosecute and imprison people, even for crimes that have nothing to do with national security. Given our nation’s history of abusing its surveillance authorities, and the secrecy surrounding the program, we should be concerned that Section 702 is and will be used to disproportionately target disfavored groups, whether minority communities, political activists, or even journalists.

Section 702 is set to expire at the end of 2017. The Trump administration wants Congress to make the law permanent. We strongly oppose those efforts and call on Congress to significantly reform the law, or allow it to sunset.

I know what the ACLU thinks and they make very good arguments, but that's not what I asked. The ACLU does not decide if a law is unconstitutional.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
BradInATX

BradInATX 9208

Posted
Posted
10 minutes ago, JimmyJames said:

Well ok. 

A. I can see you’re being sarcastic. But correct me if my internet interpretation skills are off.

B. No offense, but I really don’t care enough to search your post history on any subject. 

So basically you acknowledge that as the law is currently interpreted and enforced, the fisa warrants were valid, you just disagree with the way the law is currently interpreted and enforced.  Fine. 

If so, you should stop implying that the investigation into trump was somehow special and based on false warrants. Because it was allowed under the law, at least as its currently interpreted and enforced. 

Yeah, I like Anastasis as a poster for the most part, but I would like to see him clarify this a bit more. Ana - you seem to sort of parlay the fact that you believe that kind of surveillance should not be legal (which I agree with) into a belief that the Democrats ran a corrupt witch hunt on Trump. It's like that episode of South Park with the gnomes that steal underwear.  There's a step missing:

1) I believe FISA wiretaps and whatnot shouldn't be legal in their current form

2) ???

3) Witch hunt!!

 

What's step 2? I know you're a smart guy so I'm a bit confused by the way you seem to connect two things that aren't really related when it comes to Trump.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Anastasis

Anastasis 23717

Posted
Posted
16 minutes ago, JimmyJames said:

Well ok. 

A. I can see you’re being sarcastic. But correct me if my internet interpretation skills are off.

B. No offense, but I really don’t care enough to search your post history on any subject. 

So basically you acknowledge that as the law is currently interpreted and enforced, the fisa warrants were valid, you just disagree with the way the law is currently interpreted and enforced.  Fine. 

If so, you should stop implying that the investigation into trump was somehow special and based on false warrants. Because it was allowed under the law, at least as its currently interpreted and enforced. 

I understand.  You just started actually paying attention on 9 Nov 2016. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Chooky

Chooky 13340

Posted
Posted
21 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

Yes. Abuses of the unconstitutional surveillance apparatus are kind of are a thing of mine. Good of you to notice. 

It's interpretation, my brother.  Bush W's group just ignored FISA warrants and pursued domestic surveillance without a warrant.  They got caught and lied about it.  I'm not making a "both sides" equivocation argument.  You might know more about it.  But to me, FISA courts seem fairly rational, meaning you can begin an investigation, continue without approval, but ultimately be told whether or not your domestic surveillance can be used in court.  Even a disagreement that you're not using it in a legally sound manor doesn't mean you have to abandon the investigation.  In the era of religious extremism I can see how some might find that a rational approach.  I'm not locked into that opinion, though.  I'm open to another interpretation, because there are a thousand ways it can get shady.  Also, it might be effective if used by honorable people, too.  But who decides that?  It seems like it can used to stop something as important as an impending attack and also used as something frivolous to get a leg up on your buddy's next business merger.  I'd use it to find out the most efficient path to banging your wife, so I definitely couldn't be trusted with it.    

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Chooky

Chooky 13340

Posted
Posted
18 minutes ago, Bama Chick said:

I would bet all my money that Trump would fail the citizenship test given to and passed by the immigrants he loves to besmirch.

There isn't a single doubt in my mind.

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...