Jump to content

Donald Trump 2019

Francisco 2.0

By Francisco 2.0
in Cloak Room

 Share

Recommended Posts

jimmyjazz

jimmyjazz 45560

Posted
Posted

I think Bette stands a very good chance of being right about Trump's "blackground".  Now, the Tweeden shaming is over the line -- Bette made her career off bawdy song and dance work long before she ascended to superstar status, and I'm pretty sure she'd be offended by some of Franken's behavior, too.  (Not that I agree with Franken's resignation, I don't actually, but he did cross a line and "she was dressed like she wanted it" is a piss-poor justification.)

  • Like 3
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

DigglerontheHoof

DigglerontheHoof 21065

Posted
Posted
4 minutes ago, bolverk said:

Not a good look for ol' Bette.

[csb] My ex-wife used to love to tell a story about working in a Key West department store around 1990 and seeing Bette's boobs when she was trying on a bathing suit there. [/csb]

Were they spectacular?  Because they look like they would've been. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Irwin F Fletcher

Irwin F Fletcher 3550

Posted
Posted
LOL. High quality trolling by A/V folks. 
 
5d3988fb100a24151f414e55-1536-768.jpg
Wonderful troll job. And above the double eagle head in Latin it reads "45 is a puppet"

"Upon closer examination, the seal on Trump's right includes a double-headed eagle, unlike the single head of the traditional presidential seal, and seems to resemble the Russian coat of arms. The seal has a complex history, notes the Victoria and Albert Museum, but one of the more common interpretations is that the two heads represent east and west, "an allegory sometimes for unity, and sometimes for absolute monarchy." It could be a reference to Trump's sometimes-controversial relationship with Russian President Vladimir Putin."

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Brisketexan

Brisketexan 104628

Posted
Posted
Just now, Chooky said:

And off we go. 

Here's my question for Trumpkins: how do you justify this?  I mean, I hear y'all hollering about how you think "No, the DEMS colluded with the Russians!"  Fine.  Let's say they did.  Shouldn't we want to stop THAT?  Shouldn't we want to secure our elections against purposeful foreign interference, REGARDLESS of which "side" it might favor?  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
jimmyjazz

jimmyjazz 45560

Posted
Posted
7 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Here's my question for Trumpkins: how do you justify this?  I mean, I hear y'all hollering about how you think "No, the DEMS colluded with the Russians!"  Fine.  Let's say they did.  Shouldn't we want to stop THAT?  Shouldn't we want to secure our elections against purposeful foreign interference, REGARDLESS of which "side" it might favor?  

I fully expect a revised version of an election security bill specifically targeting interference which helps Democrats.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
wildcat09

wildcat09 29258

Posted
Posted
12 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Here's my question for Trumpkins: how do you justify this?  I mean, I hear y'all hollering about how you think "No, the DEMS colluded with the Russians!"  Fine.  Let's say they did.  Shouldn't we want to stop THAT?  Shouldn't we want to secure our elections against purposeful foreign interference, REGARDLESS of which "side" it might favor?  

They don't. They think it's perfectly fine for a hostile foreign nation to help them out, because it's good for them, but that it should be literally a crime to drive a black or brown person to the polls, because that doesn't help them.  To them, they're the good guys regardless of what they do, and we're the bad guys regardless of what we do.  

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Longhorn_Fan68

Longhorn_Fan68 33843

Posted
Posted
27 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Here's my question for Trumpkins: how do you justify this?  I mean, I hear y'all hollering about how you think "No, the DEMS colluded with the Russians!"  Fine.  Let's say they did.  Shouldn't we want to stop THAT?  Shouldn't we want to secure our elections against purposeful foreign interference, REGARDLESS of which "side" it might favor?  

as someone else stated (and doesn't seem to be talked about much), but what are all these trumpkins gonna do if somehow China helps a D win? Is election meddling bad now?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
FondrenRoad

FondrenRoad 4378

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Brisketexan said:

Here's my question for Trumpkins: how do you justify this?  I mean, I hear y'all hollering about how you think "No, the DEMS colluded with the Russians!"  Fine.  Let's say they did.  Shouldn't we want to stop THAT?  Shouldn't we want to secure our elections against purposeful foreign interference, REGARDLESS of which "side" it might favor?  

I know that is a rhetorical question, but it's all pretty simple. Republicans want our elections hacked because the Russians are in favor of their shitstain candidates that want to take America off the global stage.  In some states, they are practically gleefully handing over the keys to election systems to potential Russian hackers. 

The GOP is an entirely anti-democratic outfit now. And that's anti-democratic as in against democracy not the Democratic party. They want those Putin and Maduro style bullshit fake elections. They may get them in 2020. Watch out. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mojo Hand

Mojo Hand 4580

Posted
Posted
21 minutes ago, Chad Fuck said:

This is no surprise.  The state should not be in the business of executing its' own people, even though my lesser demons know some really do deserve it.  

Just another milepost on our nation's race to the bottom.

You can't be pro-life without dealing out a little death, amirite? 

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Dbeasy

Dbeasy 14969

Posted
Posted
Long thread on how to defeat Trump. Tim Wise worked to oppose David Duke.
"He is a white nationalist. He is an authoritarian. He and his cult are a threat to the future of the nation and world because of their hatreds. His movement betrays the country's promise. THAT is the message that will drive turnout. Not debates over marginal tax rates..."
Tim Wise @timjacobwise
2 days ago, 34 tweets, 6 min read  Read on Twitter
 
1/ If the Dems blow this election it will not be because they were "too far left on policy" or because they "weren't left enough." It will have little to do with policy at all. They are making a mistake caused by traditional consultant theory that does not apply here...
2/ And by listening to influential pundits in liberal media who also don't get the unique nature of Trumpism, relative to normal political movements & campaigns...this election is NOT going to be won by talking about all your "great plans" for health care, jobs, education, etc..
3/ And the reasons are several...Let me begin by saying that I have experience confronting the kind of phenomenon we see in Trumpism, and far more than most. Any of us who were involved in the fight against David Duke in LA in 90/91 know what this is and how it must be fought...
4/ So before explaining what the Dems are doing wrong right now, a little history...In 1990, white supremacist David Duke ran for U.S. Senate in LA, and in 1991 for Governor. He lost both times but both times he won the majority of the white vote (60 and 55% respectively)...
5/ I was one of the staffers of the main anti-Duke PAC at the time & ultimately became Assistant Director. In 90, even though our Director Lance Hill, myself & a few of our founders wanted to focus on Duke's bigotry, ties to extremists and appeals to white racial resentment...
6/ ...after all, that WAS the issue--it was a moral struggle against racism--we had mainstream Democratic consultants who warned us against focusing too much on it. They said that "played into Duke's hands" and allowed him to set the agenda....
7/ So sure, we could discuss his ties to Nazis & such, but we shouldn't make a big deal out of his contemporary racist appeals, per se, bc "lots of voters agree" with those appeals...they even encouraged us to talk about utterly superfluous shit like Duke paying his taxes late..
8/ Or Duke avoiding service in Vietnam, or Duke writing a sex manual under a female pseudonym (yeah he did that)...although Lance held firm that we needed to talk mostly about racism, we did end up talking about some of that other stuff too, sadly...
9/ I say "sadly" because doing that normalized Duke as a regular candidate. Attacking his generic character or bill paying habits (or even discussing his inadequate plans for job creation, etc) treated him like a normal candidate. But he was/is a NAZI...
10/ And none of his voters were voting 4 him bc of jobs, or tax policy or support for term limits, etc. And none were going to turn on him over late tax payments, Vietnam, etc. Indeed throwing that stuff out there & downplaying the elephant in the room (racism) seemed desperate..
11/ It allowed people to say "well if he's really this racist, white supremacist, why are they talking about all this other stuff?" It actually undermined our ability to paint him as the extremist he was/is. And as a result, the threat he posed was not clear enough to voters...
12/ And this didn't just allow him to get votes he might not have gotten otherwise; it also depressed turnout among people who almost certainly disliked him but didn't think he could win or would be all that big a deal if he did. In fact I recall convos with "liberals"...
13/ ...Who said they weren't going 2 vote bc after all Duke's Dem opponent was just a shill for the oil and gas industry, and that was just as bad, blah blah fucking blah...because some lefties can't tell the difference between corporatist assholes and actual literal Nazis...
14/ But we bore some responsibility for that because we got suckered into playing this conventional game and "not playing into his narrative." Anyway, Duke gets 60% of the vote, black and white liberal turnout is lower than it should have been and Duke gets 44% of vote...
15/ In the Governor's race we dispensed w/ all that bullshit. We talked about Duke's ongoing Nazism and the moral/practical evil of his racist appeals. We discussed how that moral evil would have real world consequences (driving tourists and business away, rightly so, from LA)..
16/ Because it was wrong, and it was not who we wanted to be, and it was not who were were. We were better than that and needed to show the rest of the country that...
17/ Now, did this flip any of Duke's 1990 voters? Nah, not really. Indeed he got 65k MORE votes in the Governor's race than the Senate race. But it was never about flipping them. We knew that would be almost impossible...
18/ To flip Duke voters would require that they accept the fact that they had previously voted for a monster, and people are loath to do that. Our goal was not to flip them, but to DRIVE UP TURNOUT among the good folks, many of whom stayed home in 90...
19/ And that is what happened. The concerted effort of the anti-Duke forces (not just us), challenging Duke's "politics of prejudice," and making the election about what kind of state we wanted to be, drove turnout through the roof...
20/ 28,000+ registered on one day alone, between the initial election and runoff (which Duke made bc of the state's open primary system), with tens of thousands more overall: most of them, anti-Duke folks...
21/ When it was over, Duke had gotten 65k more votes than in 90, but his white share went to 55 (from 60) and overall to 39 (from 44) because the anti-Duke turnout swamped him...So what does this have to do with 2020 and Trump? Do I really need to explain it?...
22/ First, trying to flip Trump voters is a waste of time. Any of them who regret their vote don't need to be pandered to. They'll do the right thing. Don't focus on them. That said, very few will regret their vote. They cannot accept they voted for a monster or got suckered...
23/ Duke retained 94% of the folks he got the first time out (and got new people too), as Trump likely will. So forget these people--or at least don't wast time tailoring messages to them. And policy plans for affordable college don't mean shit to them, nor health care...
24/ Their support for Trump was never about policy. It was about the bigotry, the fact that he hates who they hate...Second, as for the "undecideds." ...Not many of these but seriously? If you're still undecided at this point about this guy...
25/ Then there is almost no way to know what would get you to make up your mind...I doubt it's a plan to deal with Wall Street though, or infrastructure, or tax policy...
26/ If anything, I would say crafting an argument that this is an existential crisis for the nation--and making it about Trump's bigotry and who we want to be as a country, would be far more effective in inspiring them to make up their minds...
27/ And what I know for a FACT is that this message--that Trumpism is a threat to everything we care about and love about this country--is what will inspire the Dem base to vote...and THAT is what this election is about...
28/ I'm not saying the Dems don't need policy ideas, but focusing on wonky, look-how-much-I've-thought about-this stuff is not going to move the needle in 2020...
29/ What the left never understands is: we need to stop approaching elections like the goddamned debate team, and start approaching it like the right does, like the cheerleading squad...
30/ The right knows psychology and we know public policy and sociology...great. The latter does not win elections...
31/ People who say the Dems should ignore Trump's race baiting because its some genius political strategy calculated to distract us, are idiots. He is no genius. And if you downplay it you NORMALIZE him. If you make this about policy, you NORMALIZE him. He is a racist...
32/ He is a white nationalist. He is an authoritarian. He and his cult are a threat to the future of the nation and world because of their hatreds. His movement betrays the country's promise. THAT is the message that will drive turnout. Not debates over marginal tax rates...
33/ Or how we are going to fund schools...And anyone who says we should ignore the race baiting to talk more about Mueller and Russia is an even bigger fool...that's like talking about Duke and late tax payments or other corruptions...it might all be true but is not the point...
34/ Not to say the House shouldn't impeach over that stuff. They should. But the 2020 candidates must craft a message that is not about that. Trumpism is the threat to America, more than Putin. And Putin didn't birth Trumpism. Conservative White America did...
 


This write up has really caused me to re-think my views on the election. Originally I would have thought that a focus on race, etc would alienate too many people and cause him to be re-elected. But really, if the focus could be placed on his terrible character in general, ie how he dealt with a Saudi Arabia, the immigration issue, how we are being perceived in the world, etc. that might be the best approach. He’s probably right about trump voters and undecided’s. If they have turned yet they probably never will. Just get huge voter turnout from the left.
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
lemonlime

lemonlime 5503

Posted
Posted
13 minutes ago, horncyclist said:

How the fuck is this in any way defensible? How do you even begin to defend it?

It's not.  The sum total of their "defense" is but Hillary and but Obama.  Followed by an unflattering picture of AOC and some facebook memes that contain lots of pictures of eagles and flags.    And when everyone isn't flabbergasted by their rhetorical brilliance, well,  then the rest of the world are in a liberal circle jerk.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
mdmost

mdmost 42865

Posted
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, horncyclist said:

How the fuck is this in any way defensible? How do you even begin to defend it?

Because all they care about is holding onto or acquiring power. Gerrymandering districts, suppressing votes, Russian interference. The ends justifies the means...until it is used against them and then it's a crisis. 

Edited by mdmost
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mdhorn

Mdhorn 5911

Posted
Posted (edited)
12 minutes ago, mdmost said:

Because all they care about is holding to or acquiring power. Gerrymandering districts, suppressing votes, Russian interference. The ends justifies the means...until it is used against them and then it's a crisis. 

That's literally the only way their SCOTUS picks will rule against gerrymandering--if and when it no longer benefits Republicans.  This is also the reason why they decide to take power away from governors--only when Republicans lose. 

Edited by Mdhorn
Link to comment
Share on other sites
retread

retread 2951

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, mdmost said:

Because all they care about is holding onto or acquiring power. Gerrymandering districts, suppressing votes, Russian interference. The ends justifies the means...until it is used against them and then it's a crisis. 

Yep. We're through the looking glass, and there's no turning back -- at least not easily. Full blow traitors carrying out their actions in plain view.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
DixonHur

DixonHur 11227

Posted
Posted
4 hours ago, Brisketexan said:

Here's my question for Trumpkins: how do you justify this?  I mean, I hear y'all hollering about how you think "No, the DEMS colluded with the Russians!"  Fine.  Let's say they did.  Shouldn't we want to stop THAT?  Shouldn't we want to secure our elections against purposeful foreign interference, REGARDLESS of which "side" it might favor?  

The real issue isn't Russian interference, it's the illegals voting 7-8 times a piece.  Build the wall!  - MAGA

Link to comment
Share on other sites
atomheartbevo

atomheartbevo 89449

Posted
Posted

Is Trump going to come down hard on the latests arrests for the coyotes bringing illegal immigrants into the US?

https://www.cnn.com/2019/07/25/politics/us-marines-arrested/index.html

Quote

Sixteen US Marines were arrested Thursday for alleged involvement in various illegal activities ranging from human smuggling to drug-related offenses, according to a statement from the Marine Corps.

The arrests took place in a dramatic fashion on Thursday morning at Camp Pendleton, California, during a battalion formation.

"Information gained from a previous human smuggling investigation precipitated the arrests," the statement said. "None of the Marines arrested or detained for questioning served in support of the Southwest Border Support mission."

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
RomaVicta

RomaVicta 29794

Posted
Posted

The Senate is the firewall for the criminal enterprise that is the GOP. They confirm the Supreme Court justices in their own favor. They can stop any popular move by the House when controlled by the Dems. When the president is a GOP, they rule all kinds of shit.

I was persuaded by a Christopher Hitchens piece in Vanity Fair after W was re-elected that the Ohio voting machines were tampered with. Other Dems (including Mondale) lost elections they were heavily favored to win. I believe Dieboldt machines were used in all of these races.

Gerrymandering gives the GOP an unfair advantage in House elections. They don't care how they win. I honestly don't know what's foremost in their minds in terms of motivation. Raw power hunger? Money? A belief that they and only they can save America from changing into something new?

Having the Russians help is gravy. They provide a scapegoat even if they have little impact.

Of course the GOP doesn't want to protect elections. If the firewall comes down, many of them are going to jail.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
retread

retread 2951

Posted
Posted
11 minutes ago, RomaVicta said:

 Gerrymandering gives the GOP an unfair advantage in House elections. They don't care how they win. I honestly don't know what's foremost in their minds in terms of motivation. Raw power hunger? Money? A belief that they and only they can save America from changing into something new?

Having the Russians help is gravy. They provide a scapegoat even if they have little impact.

Of course the GOP doesn't want to protect elections. If the firewall comes down, many of them are going to jail. 

Sadly, I think most Rs (esp. Senators) think of it as a game. They don't really worry about anything but maintaining power and keeping the flow of money going. Keep the browns out of the USA and keep the undesirables on the other side of town. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
bolverk

bolverk 29402

Posted
Posted
5 hours ago, Chooky said:

And off we go. 

That was yesterday. Here's the latest from today.

McConnell blocks two election security bills

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) blocked two election security measures on Thursday, arguing Democrats are trying to give themselves a "political benefit."

The move comes a day after former special counsel Robert Mueller warned about election meddling in 2020, saying Russia was laying the groundwork to interfere in the 2020 election "as we sit here."

Senate Minority Leader Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) had tried to get consent Thursday to pass a House bill that requires the use of paper ballots and includes funding for the Election Assistance Commission. It passed the House 225-184 with one Republican voting for it.

But McConnell objected, saying Schumer was trying to pass “partisan legislation.” 

“Clearly this request is not a serious effort to make a law. Clearly something so partisan that it only received one single solitary Republican vote in the House is not going to travel through the Senate by unanimous consent,” McConnell said.

Under the Senate’s rules any one senator can request consent to pass a bill, but any one senator can object.

Schumer argued that if McConnell didn’t like that bill “let’s put another bill on the floor and debate it.”

Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) also asked for consent to pass legislation that would require candidates, campaign officials and their family members to notify the FBI of assistance offers from foreign governments.

McConnell also objected to that bill. 

In his testimony before Congress on Wednesday, Mueller warned about continued Russian interference in U.S. elections.

“We are expecting them to do it again during the next campaign,” Mueller said.

Schumer cited Mueller’s testimony on Thursday as a prime example that more legislation is needed from Congress. 

“It was important for all us to hear straight from Robert Mueller's mouth that the threat from Russia and other foreign adversaries seeking to meddle in our elections is very real and still very much ongoing,” Schumer said.

“Mueller's testimony was a clarion call for election security. Mueller's testimony should be a wake-up call to every American, Democrat, Republican, liberal, conservative, that the integrity of our elections is at stake. … This is all about the future of this country,” he added.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
DixonHur

DixonHur 11227

Posted
Posted
10 minutes ago, Chad Fuck said:

With Bronze Prophylactic for VD evasion despite the presence of numerous carriers.

Like Trump would ever settle for bronze...get your head out of your ass.  He's happily sacrifice Tiffany to earn Gold Star family status.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Horn Under a Bad Sign

Horn Under a Bad Sign 20344

Posted
Posted
Quote

 The Trump administration failed to follow ethics rules last year when it dismissed academic members of Environmental Protection Agency advisory boards and replaced them with appointees connected to industry, a federal watchdog agency concluded Monday.


 

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/15/climate/epa-advisory-panels-gao-report.html

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...